Gavin M. Mylliem v. State of Meghalaya
Meghalaya Installation, Regulation, Maintenance and Operation of Weighbridge Rules, 2009 - Rule 14 - Existing Weighbridges to comply with provision of these Rules.
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 284 of 2016 19.11.2018
Coram: Hon‟ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Chief Justice Hon‟ble Mr. Justice S.R. Sen, Judge
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. AK Bhattacharya, Sr.Adv with Mr. DK Bhattacharya, Adv
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. KP Bhattacharjee, GA
Gledish R. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya
The petitioner prayed for issue of direction so as to command the respondents No. 1 to 3 to consider his case for shifting the present Wine Store to its original place where it was located and also to direct the respondents to take action against respondent No. 4 for having violated the norms while establishing his Wine Shop. In this behalf, it is stated that the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondent Deputy Commissioner (Excise), East Garo Hills, Williamnagar and also a complaint lodged before the Superintendent of Excise, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar, Meghalaya respectively, but no action has been taken constraining the petitioner to file the instant petition.
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 434 of 2018 17-11-2018
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Chief Justice
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. P.T. Sangma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. P. Bhattacharjee, GA (For R 1 - 3)
Tony Trabert C. Marak v. State of Meghalaya
The case as setup by petitioner is that on reaching superannuation has retired from the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Meghalaya on 30.04.2014 but till date his case for sanction of pension has not been finalized nor gratuity amount has been paid to him, hence this writ petition.
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 432 of 2018 16-11-2018
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Chief Justice
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Yobin, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, AAG
Sony Tariang v. Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council
When the respondents have exercised the power in an arbitrary manner in violation to the principles of natural justice, exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is warranted. The authorities of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) cannot claim to be above the law, their functions have to be within the limit of law and their actions must pass the test of fairness and reasonableness. In case the orders were passed in an arbitrary manner, implying that by any means they have authority to do the same cannot be permitted.
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 285 of 2018 16-11-2018
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Chief Justice
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S Sen, Adv
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B Bhattacharjee, Adv for R/1-4
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) N.E.R., Shillong v. Rajesh Lapang
Customs Act, 1962 - Section 123 - Once the goods were not proved to be of foreign origin, there could be no question of confiscation
Customs Act, 1962 - Section 130 - Appeal under Section 130 of the Act of 1962 has to be maintained only when substantial questions of law will arise for determination.
Two trucks loaded with dry suprari (betel nuts) on 14.01.2016 were intercepted by custom officers. The drivers were asked to produce the documents which they failed, therefore, on the reasonable belief that the goods are illegally imported into India both the trucks were seized along with the goods. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that it was for the revenue to discharge the onus regarding foreign origin of the seized goods (betel nuts). As the said goods (commodity) are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. True it is that the revenue has not produced any evidence scientific or otherwise to prove foreign origin of the seized goods. Betel nuts are also available in India, therefore, pre-condition for confiscation is that the goods must have been of foreign origin and must have been imported to India in a manner other than as prescribed by Customs Act so as to fall within the ambit of Section 111 of the Act of 1962.
Cus. Appl. No. 3 of 2018 16-11-2018
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Sen, Judge
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. N Mozika, Adv
For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. P Sikdar, Adv
Melvereen Iangrai v. Agnes Kharshiing
Khasi Autonomous District Council Service Rules, 1961 - There could be a scope for directing holding of fresh interview because whole selection process has commenced in an arbitrary manner, the mode/method of selection, allocation of marks for written examination and viva voce were not notified.
Case Number Rev.P. No. 11 of 2018 15-11-2018
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Sen,
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S.S. Dey, Sr. Adv. with Ms. B. Mawlieh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Qureshi, Adv. with Ms. K. Chisa, Adv.
Md. Amirul Islam v. State of Meghalaya
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354(B), 376, 511, 379 r/w. 34 - Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with Tura woman P.S. case No. 32(5) 2017 for commission of offence under Section 354(B)/376/511/379/34 I.P.C. had twice moved applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, West Garo Hills, Tura unsuccessfully, both the applications have been rejected. Copy of the report (First Information Report) available on record suggests that there is no scope for granting pre-arrest bail. True it is that from the year 2017 the petitioner has not been arrested, that will not constitute ground for invoking the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The contention of the petitioner that without any cause petitioner an innocent person is attempted to be implicated with the design to wreck vengeance, is for the investigating agency to investigate. The investigating officer is expected to investigate the matter in a fair and transparent manner so that any innocent is not dragged and harassed. It shall be open to the petitioner to make his position clear before the investigating officer, no case for invoking powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Petition is disposed
Case Number A.B. No. 25 of 2018 15-11-2018
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Chief Justice
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.A. Sheikh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, AAG with Mr. A. Kharwanlang, GA
Mehilla K. Sangma v. Meghalaya Transport Corporation
Service Law - PPF/EPF, Gratuity, Leave Encashment and other retirement benefits is the right of a person and there is no law to debarred a person from such right till date. Therefore, the respondents are directed to clear all the benefits as mentioned above within 3(three) months from the date of this Judgment and Order and those petitioners who have not filled up their claim forms are directed to go to the concerned office and fill up the claim forms within a week. The respondents-authority is further directed to cooperate with the petitioners while filling up their claim forms and other documents.
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 220 of 2018 15-11-2018
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R.Sen, Judge (ORAL)
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. N.Syngkon, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K.Khan, Adv. for R 1
Ferdausi Begum v. State of Meghalaya
Service Law - Teachers - The Petitioners are all teachers of Mahendraganj Girls' Secondary School and serving the School for several years - School is trying to appoint new teachers in gross violation of law in order to accommodate them in the vacancies likely to be caused in near further. Moreover, instead of releasing the due amount to the teachers the school is with-holding the salary partially which is illegal and in violation of Government Policy - deducting certain amount from the salary of the teachers which is a crime. Hence, respondent No. 4 is directed to immediately stop such practice and to disburse the salary to the Bank Accounts of the respective teachers as per the Order of the government quoted above without any deduction. It is further directed that whatever amount which has been deducted till date, that is to be refunded to the Bank Accounts of the teachers concerned. Since such anomalies and practice is illegal and is an offence as per the law prevailing in the country, Additional Director General Headquarters, CID, Shillong is directed to conduct a full enquiry and submit the report before this Court within one month so that such practices will not repeat in future.
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 41 of 2017 14-11-2018
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R.Sen, Judge
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. R.Kar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H.Abraham, GA for R 1-3. Mr. N.Syngkon, Adv. for R 4.
Union of India v. Uma Shankar Shukla
The petition is not maintainable because the order sought to be quashed dated 08.08.2018 has merged with order dated 05.10.2018 which is not under challenge.
Case Number : M.C. (W.P.C.) No. 216 of 2018 14-11-2018
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Sen, Judge
For the Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) : Ms. A. Paul, ASG
Pradip Kumar Prasad v. Union of India
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking direction against the respondent authority for setting aside the impugned order of dismissal dated 16th November 2012, passed by the Respondent Authorities on the ground that the petitioner before passing the impugned order of the dismissal, no enquiry was constituted before imposing the punitive punishment of major penalty of dismissal as enshrined under Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services Rules, 1965 and also the impugned order of dismissal has been issued by the officer who is not empowered to issue the same. Hence, this instant writ petition.
The petitioner obtained enrollment by producing a fake domicile certificate and when it was detected, a show cause notice was issued and the same was replied by the petitioner.
On perusal of the Annexure-5 and 6 referred above, it appears that the domicile certificate was arranged by a lawyer, as such the petitioner was not sure whether the certificate was registered or not. Annexure-3 of the affidavit dated 19.09.2012 at Serial No. 4 reflects that the remark of Shri. Pradip Kumar Prasad is "FAKE". So, after perusal of the record and applying my judicial mind, I am of the view that a person can approach for justice with a clean hand. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned dismissal order dated 16.11.2012. I further note that when a person is guilty of his own conduct, he/she cannot just ask for relief on technical ground. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed and stands disposed of.
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 207 of 2017 14-11-2018
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Sen, Judge
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Jha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Mozika, CGC.
Drainsing Kharpan v. Estel Kharpan
The Court has taken a negative view just because the suit premises are not being mentioned in the written statement, which is not a correct position of law. Generally, the suit premises are to be proved by the plaintiff/respondent not by the defendant/petitioner.
Case Number : C.R.P. No. 11 of 2017 13-11-2018
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Sen, Judge (Oral)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.C. Chakrawarty, Sr. Adv. with Ms. R. Sumer, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Wahlang, Adv.
Bidington Kharir v. Acting Syiem of Hima Mylliem
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 4 - On perusal of the impugned order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the Judge, District Council Court, Khasi Hills, Shillong, it appears that the Court has come to the conclusion without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without framing any issues. Therefore, it is necessary that the Court to frame the issues and then to decide whether it has the jurisdiction or not by a speaking order and who should be the necessary party. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the Judge, District Council Court, Khasi Hills, Shillong is hereby set aside.
Case Number : C.R.P. No. 29 of 2018 13-11-2018
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Sen, Judge (Oral)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. C.H. Mawlong, Adv.
Salma Khan v. State of Meghalaya
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - S. 3 - When pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners - Petition is allowed based on the opinion of the Medical Board, Director Health Services, Meghalaya to take necessary steps for termination of pregnancy of the rape victim (a minor girl).
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 394 of 2018 08-11-2018
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Chief Justice
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mrs. T. Yangi B, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Sen, Sr. GA
Amica Nongkynrih v. State of Meghalaya
Service Law - A staff should not be suspended or departmental proceedings should not be drawn on mere absence from duty.
View Judgment: http://bit.ly/WPC418of2016
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 418 of 2016 08-11-2018
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 418 of 2016 08-11-2018
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Sen, Judge (Oral)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, Sr. Adv. with Mr. N. Mozika, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, GA.
Nathme A. Sangma v. GHADC
Service Law - The petitioner's deceased husband was the employee of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council. He retired from service on 30.09.2011 and expired on 03.09.2016, but unfortunately he did not get the pensionary benefits, such as gratuity and leave encashment, which amounts to Rs. 8,54,080/- out of which Rs. 3,20,017/- has been paid and the rest of the amount is to be paid in two installments as per the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent - the respondent is directed to pay the rest of the amount within 45 days without fail from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order.
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 31 of 2018 02-11-2018
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Sen, Judge (Oral)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Hassan, Adv. vice Mr. S.A. Sheikh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Dey, Adv. (For R 1-5)
Meghalaya College Teachers Association v. State of Meghalaya
Govt. of Meghalaya must think seriously about the upliftment and security of the government deficit /adhoc/aided college teachers and they cannot just justify that the appointment methods are different between the government college teachers and government deficit /adhoc/aided college teachers. It is not at all acceptable and not sustainable in the eye of law because both the classes of teachers are giving equal service to the society. We are unable to accept the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission at para 3 where the retired teachers of deficit/adhoc/aided colleges were recommended only Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5000/- which is too meagre in comparison with the present price index and did not serve any purpose at all. The amount shown above for the teachers of deficit/adhoc/aided colleges and staff also goes against the principle of doctrine of equality and social security. Government should remember that teachers should not be considered as beggars, they are one of the most respected citizens of the country and the backbone of the society. It is also known to all of us that in different parts of the world, teachers are respected and well paid.
View Judgment : http://bit.ly/WPC281of2017
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 281 of 2017 24-10-2018 01-11-2018
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 281 of 2017 24-10-2018 01-11-2018
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R.Sen, Judge
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. B.K.Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. R.Mazumdar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.Kumar, AG with Mr. H.Abraham, GA for R 1&2 Ms. P.Bhattacharjee, Adv. for R 3 Mrs. P.D.Bujarbarua, Adv. for R 4-18 Dr. N.Mozika, CGC for R 19 & 20
Comments
Post a Comment