ARCHI SIANGSHAI Vs. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of the case is that, "the petitioners are all born and brought up at Mamrakmai village, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya and as such are the permanent resident of Pamrakmai village belonging to the Pnar community which is the indigenous tribe of the Jaintia Hills District. The petitioners on attaining their marriageable ages entered into marriage with non -tribal who does not belong to their village, and ever since their marriage with non -tribal, they have been constantly subjected to harassment and threat to their lives and finally without any notice ex -communicated/ostracized from their villages by the respondents No. 5, 6 & 7 and further prohibited them from visiting their villages nor allow them to visit their family members. Further, the respondents have even denied them any residential certificates in order to enable them to claim the benefits of the governmental schemes for BPL families nor they could get any rented house and jobs in the absence of residential certificates. The petitioners faced with such hardships and difficulties approached the respondent No. 2 vide complaint dated 21.12.2013, 21.05.2014 but the respondent No. 2 paid no heed to the complaint and again on 18.07.2014, the petitioners filed a joint complaint for protection of their fundamental rights, but to the utter shock and perplexity the complaint was registered as Non FIR case No. 5 of 2014 on the report of the Incharge Ladrymbai Police Station the respondent No. 4 and proceeded under Section 107 CrPC. Hence, when the authorities have failed to perform the constitutional obligation and duty to protect the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The petitioners are compelled to file the instant writ."

(2.) MR . O.D.V. Ladia, learned senior counsel appearing for on behalf of the petitioners submits that, as per direction of this Court, the petitioners were allowed to return to their respective villages, as such, the matter has been compromised and the petitioners are not interested to proceed with the case any further.

(3.) BEFORE I part with this case record, I observe that the original concept of headman of a locality is totally different from what it is at present. As far as my knowledge goes, headman should be elderly person of a locality with good background, having humane feeling, sense of integrity and who is against all kinds of violence and elected by the people of the locality and to obtain sanat from syiem. The duty of headman is to look after the welfare only of the locality concerned and at best can place the grievances of the people to the Government, District Administration or to the Police. Headman of a locality did not derive any right from law, and rule or from the Constitution of India to issue NOC for the purpose of birth/death or for registration of any document as well as for building permission and obtaining loan. We often notice that, whenever any person approached for birth/death certificate, building permission, registration of sale deed or any other document or electric connection, loan they have been asked to bring NOC from local headman which is highly illegal on the part of the District Administration and the Government. We also notice that, very often local headmen interfere with the police work as well as with the District Administration. Now the question comes, where from those headmen derive the power to issue NOC or to interfere with administration or indulge in removing people from villages. The answer is that, no rule of law has empowered them to do so; they are doing of these kinds of activities as per their whim and will and they try to run a parallel Government. As a result, common citizens are the worse sufferers which should not be allowed at any cost.