BRIMSINGH MAWPHNIANG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer to call for records, to quash the letters dated 13.05.2010, 15.06.2010, and 29.11.2010, and to direct respondent Nos. 2 & 3 for allowing the petitioner to discharge his duties as Sordar of Nongladew village.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case leading to filing of this petition are that in the meeting of Dorbar Pyllun of Nongladew village held on 06.12.2008, the petitioner claimed to have been unanimously elected as the Sordar of the village. He took the responsibility of his new assignment as Sordar of Nongladew village, and by the letter dated 20.2.2009 addressed a communication to Syiem of Nongkhlaw (respondent No. 3) which was also signed by villagers with a request to him to grant him (petitioner) Sanad for Sordarship. The petitioner continued to discharge his responsibility and duty of Sordar of Nongkhlaw village since 06.12.2008 when he was unanimously elected by villagers. The fact of his election was not disputed by any member of his village. It was a simple formality according to the petitioner, and there is no chance, even remote, that the petitioner could be deprived of his right to receive Sanad. The act of conferment of Sanad is rather obligatory consequent upon petitioner's election to the office of Sordar of the village. The petitioner submits that he patiently waited for more than seven months but there was no communication from the side of Respondent No. 3 in regard to grant of Sanad of Sordar to him. Thereafter, the petitioner vide his letter dated 02.09.2009 again requested Syiem of Nongladew to kindly grant him Sanad of Sordar. However, having waited for long and having received no response from Respondent No. 3 in regard to representations dated 20.2.2009 and 02.09.2009, the petitioner vide the letter dated 19.01.2010 addressed a communication to the Executive Member, Incharge of Elaka Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong, explaining him the circumstances as to how his appointment and grant of Sanad have been kept in abeyance by Respondent No. 3. The Executive member (though elected) works under the Chief Executive Member of the District Council who has been impleaded as Respondent No. 2 (head of the District Council). The District Council and the institution of Syiemship are the instrumentalities of State under the 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India (in re Article 244(2) & 276(1)] and thus a writ petition would lie under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Deputy Secretary to the Executive Committee of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council vide his letter bearing Memo. No. DC XXVII/Genl/163/2004/10/17 dated 12.2.2010 addressed to the Syiem of Nongladew sought his view in respect of grant of Sanad of Sordar of the Nongladew village. The petitioner addressed another letter to the Executive Member Incharge of Elaka concerned again after waiting for long with a prayer to expedite the process of granting of Sanad to the petitioner. The Deputy Secretary to the Executive Committee Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council addressed another letter to Respondent No. 3 vide Memo. No. DC XXVII/GENL/163/2004 -10/19 Dated 19th March 2010, with a copy thereof endorsed to the petitioner, whereby the Deputy Secretary has once again reminded the Syiem Nongkhlaw about his earlier letter dated 12.02.2010, and sought for an early view, over the matter relating to Sordar of Nongladew. It is also an averment that the District Council is the creation of the Constitution of India under Article 244(2) and 275(1) and exercises the powers conferred by sub para 6 of paragraph 2 of the 6th Schedule. The rule which has also been framed in this regard is called 'the Assam & Meghalaya Autonomous District Council Rule 1951' for the regulation of the functions of District Council. Moreover, in the recent past, the Act called 'the Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Appointment & Succession of Syiem, Deputy Syiem, Elector and Rangbah Shnong of Mylliem Syiemship) Act 2007' has been enacted which contains the provisions relating to the functions of the Syiem and that of the District Council and thus they are now well defined. Even the appointments of Sordar and Headman of villages are covered under the new Act. The petitioner is a Khasi by birth and his mother and father were also Khasi by birth and that since the Khasi society is matrilineal by nature, the descent is reckoned only from the mother. Accordingly, the petitioner is an original Khasi of Nongladew village and a permanent resident of Hima Nongkhlaw and therefore he was elected Sordar unanimously in the meeting held on 6/12/2008 by participation of the entire villagers. This apart, the petitioner had received a number of communications form respondent No. 3 and his status of Sordar has already been recognized by the said Respondent. Thus, according to the petitioner by virtue of his defacto position as duly elected, conferment of Sanad is simply a formality, which cannot be denied under the aforesaid circumstances. Since he has also prayed before the Executive member Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council to cause grant of Sanad to him, a prayer is made for issuance of some appropriate directions. Respondent No. 3 in his communication dated 13.05.2010 to the Deputy Secretary has mentioned that village Nongladew is a village where all the residents are Garo and they do not originally belong to Hima Nongkhlaw. Syiem has also referred to Customs of Hima while saying that a non -Khasi man can only become the Rangbah Dong (Locality Headman) and not Sordar of Nongladew village and that is why for Nongladew village, the authorization has been given to the Sordar of the neighboring Khasi village Umsong. It is also alleged that for denying appointment and grant of Sanad of Sordar to the petitioner, Respondent No. 3 had cited the reason that the petitioner is married to a Garo woman and there is an apprehension that he might be influenced by the Garo people. This statement according to the petitioner is highly defamatory and objectionable when he is by birth a Khasi and he is duly entitled to be Sordar. The petitioner has taken serious exception to statement of concluding paragraph in the letter dated 13th May 2010 to the effect that he is not acquainted with customs of the Hima which is rather far from truth for the petitioner is born and brought up under those customs. An explanation in regard to the marriage of the petitioner with a Garo woman has already been offered. Marrying a Garo woman does not anyway deprive him of his Khasi status by any means and the rejection of Sanad on that ground would not be accepted. Respondent No. 3 has addressed the impugned letter dated 29.11.2010 to the effect that the petitioner can be appointed as headman of the locality and not a Sordar, and the petitioner was also warned by the impugned letter that a penal action may be taken against him if he ever used the word "Sordar". It is also a submission on behalf of the petitioner that the principle of natural justice and fair has not been allowed to play its part in the case of the petitioner.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 and No. 3 have acted in collusion to deny the petitioner grant of Sanad and his marriage with a Garo woman does not forfeit or circumvent his inherent capacity to be the Sordar upon being elected by the villagers. In fact, Respondent No. 3 has recognized him as Sordar all along by associating him in the meetings of Syiem on different occasions, and the recognition so granted to him cannot be withheld for any consideration.