Meghalaya High Court Monthly Digest: Citations 1-12

Nominal Index:1. Benedic R. Marak v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 1 2. Megha Technical & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 2 3. Sanjeeb Ch. Marak v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 3 4. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Shillong Regional Unit, Shillong v. Shri Ajay Babu Manda 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 4 5. Shri Delican Shadap & Anr. v. Smti. Dal Nongtri & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 5 6. Cheerfulson Snaitang v. State of Meghalaya 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 6 7. M/s Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Meghalaya & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 7 8. Miss Bisakha Geonka v. North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of Health & Medical Sciences & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 8 9. Union of India & Ors. v. Dharamvir Singh 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 9 10. North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institution of Health and Medical Sciences & Anr. v. Bisakha Goenka 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 10 11. Shri. Skhemborlang Suting & Anr. v. State of Meghalaya & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 11 12. Morningstar Nongsiej v. State of Meghalaya 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 12 Digest Of Cases Reported:1. Meghalaya High Court Refuses To Interfere With The Governor's Summon To Garo Hills ADC To Take Up No-Confidence MotionCase Title: Benedic R. Marak v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 1 The High Court refused to interfere with a notice issued by the Governor of Meghalaya under Rule 36(5) of the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, whereby the District Council had been summoned to take up a no-confidence motion against the Executive Committee of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council. Stressing upon the need to urgently conduct a floor test, Justice H.S. Thangkhiew observed: "It has to be kept in mind that the District Council as constituted under the Sixth Schedule is a democratic legislative institution apart from other functions, wherein members are elected, and to prove majority or strength in the house in such institutions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a number of decisions has consistently held that in the event of conflicting alliances or claims, a floor test can be directed to avoid uncertainty and to ensure smooth running of a democratic institution which would in turn ensure stability."2. "State In A Constitutional Republic Can't Indulge In Arbitrary Generation Of Funds": High Court Annuls Meghalaya Cement Cess Act, 2010Case Title: Megha Technical & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 2 The High Court has nullified the Meghalaya Cement Cess Act, 2010, holding it to be arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. While rebuking the State for irrationally raising revenue through the legislation, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh held that the principle is too well established to be questioned. Yet, it will not do for a State in a constitutional republic wedded to the rule of law to suggest that it may indulge in arbitrary or irrational or illegal generation of funds without being liable to return the same upon the Court finding the process to be illegal.3. Meghalaya Police Member Found Passing Info To Extremist Outfit: High Court Upholds His Removal Sans Inquiry Case Title: Sanjeeb Ch. Marak v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 3 The High Court upheld the removal (sans inquiry) of a member of the State Police Force who was found passing on information pertaining to police operations and movements to a banned and extremist outfit by the name of Garo National Liberation Army. Finding justification in the move to remove him from service without giving him an opportunity to defend the charges levelled against him, the Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh observed, "When a member of the police force was found betraying his own force and supplying information to an extremist outfit that the police organisation was trying to deal with, it was justifiable on the part of the disciplinary authority to consider it to be not reasonably practicable to afford the writ petitioner an opportunity of dealing with the charge against him in the course of any inquiry."4. Magistrate Can't Use Power U/S 451/457 Cr.P.C. When Trial Or Inquiry Has Not Been Set In Motion: Meghalaya High Court Case Title: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Shillong Regional Unit, Shillong v. Shri Ajay Babu Manda Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 4 A Single Judge Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh has held that Magistrate cannot employ his power under Sections 451/457, Cr.P.C. when trial or inquiry has not been set in motion. Sections 451 and 457 deal with an order for custody and disposal of property pending trial and procedure by police upon seizure...

Meghalaya High Court Monthly Digest: Citations 1-12

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags