U SWINDRO LYNGDOH Vs. U DWIK SYIEMIONG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14-3-95, in Civil Rule No. 16(SH) 94.

(2.) At the admission stage we have heard Mr. N. M. Lahiri, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, Mr. M. Z. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 2, Mr. B. B.Narzary, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. A. Mannan, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.

(3.) The brief facts for the purposes of adjudication of the present appeal are that Umdohlun market admittedly is being run under the provisions of Khasi Hills (Establishment, Management and Control of Markets) Regulation, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation, 1979). According to the petitioner/appellant, on 14-2-91, he had filed an application to the Secretary, Executive Committee Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC), Shillong, for recognising and establishing a private market at Umdohlun on behalf of the Lyngdoh Paliar 3 womb clan of Mawkyrda. The Executive Committee granted permission to the petitioner to establish and manage the private market as an agent of the aforesaid Clan and a notification to that effect was also issued. The petitioner/appellant has thus been running a market and has been giving the share of the toll money to the Executive Committee of the District Council. Respondent No. 1. U. Dwik Syiemiong who was acting as the Syiem (Rajah) of Nobosohphoh Syiemship of the Elaka, intervened and claimed a right that he was entitled to manage the market and control the same. The petitioner/appellant made a complaint before the Executive Committee of the KHADC. After that, as there was interference in running the market by Dwik Syiemiong and there was no action by the Executive Committee of the District council, the petitioner/appellant approached this Court by filing Civil Rule No. 16(SH) 94 praying for a writ of Mandamus restraining the respondent No. 1 from interfering in the running of the market in question. The learned Single Judge under the impugned judgment has negatived the contentions raised by the petitioner/appellant and has upheld the right of the respondent No. 1 to run the market and on those findings, has rejected the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner/appellant. It is this order of the learned Single Judge which is under challenge in the present appeal.