JINGSENG MARAK Vs. GARO HILLS AUTONOMOUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1 who is stated to be a Nokma of IV-48 (7A) Sokadam/ Sokadamgre / Sokhadamgiri A'king alongwith other petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved with an order dtd. 18/3/2024, passed by the respondent No. 2 the Chief Executive Member, whereby, though by an earlier order dtd. 19/9/2023, an execution case being Execution Case No. 19 of 2022 had been referred to the Court of the District Judge/ Additional District Court, District Council Court GHADC, however without any effective orders, and when the matter was already seized by the District Council Court, the respondent No. 2 had passed orders for restoration and for setting aside or recall the order dated 19-09- 2023, without any reasons being ascribed.

(2.) Mr. A.G.Momin, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners' limited grievance is with regard to the legality of the impugned order whereby on an execution being filed by the petitioners, and the same had been referred to the District Council Court, the respondent No. 2 had again taken up the matter without any cogent reasons being ascribed. It is further submitted that the petitioners are aware about the other parallel proceedings with regard to the appeal from the order or decree for which the execution has been sought. He however submits that, that being an independent proceeding, the passing of the impugned order has clouded the proceedings, he therefore prays that the impugned order be set aside and quashed.

(3.) Mr. S.Dey, learned SC for the official respondents No. 1 and 2 has submitted that the execution proceedings had emanated from an order of the Samanda Village Court whereby a fine of Rs.500.00 (Rupees five hundred) only had been imposed on the private respondents No. 3-16. This order he submits, though belatedly, has been appealed against, and the matter is seized with the Assistant Judge, District Council Court. With regard to the impugned order, the learned counsel has submitted that the Chief Executive Member is well within his powers to recall his own orders and to pass necessary orders thereon. He therefore submits, that no interference is called for and as the appeal is pending consideration, the parties be left to contest the case.