RENOLD S. MARBANIANG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the impugned actions of the respondents District Council in causing closure of his shop situated at Nongmynsong Bazar, East Khasi Hills. The case of the petitioner is that even though he is a tribal and there is no requirement for him to possess or obtain a trading license, the respondent District Council in an arbitrary and illegal manner without giving any opportunity of hearing had closed down the shop on the ground that it is an establishment owned by a non-tribal, without a valid license which has compelled him to approach this Court for a direction to allow him to run his shop peacefully.

(2.) Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner (L) H. Marbaniang had taken an NOC from the Dorbar Shnong of Nongmynsong to open a Hardware shop at Nongmysong, and to this effect an Agreement had been executed between his late father and the Village Dorbar (Annexure-3.) He submits that after his father expired, the said establishment is now owned and looked after by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was taken aback therefore when his shop was forcefully closed by the officials of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 on 12.06.2019. Learned counsel also produced two photographs to substantiate his submissions that the shop has been forcibly closed down. He then submits that the entire exercise conducted by the respondents District Council, without ascertaining the facts as they pertain, and without due process of law being followed, is totally illegal and without jurisdiction and deserves to be interfered with by this court.

(3.) Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Kynta, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 5 submits that there is no evidence to show that the shop has been sealed by the respondents, nor does the shop figure in the record of list of shops of that area that had been sealed by the respondent District Council on 12.06.2019. He further submits that for every such action undertaken by the respondents, a set procedure is followed, and the same is not conducted in a haphazard manner. The learned senior counsel in the records produced before this Court has pointed to a clarification issued by the Superintendent Enforcement with regard to the shop in question which is reproduced herein below: -