High Court of Meghalaya
Nidahun Shadap & Ors vs . Emilianda Nikhla & Ors on 23 August, 2022
Serial No.02
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WA No.31/2022
Date of order: 23.08.2022
Nidahun Shadap & ors Vs. Emilianda Nikhla & ors
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellants : Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, Sr.Adv with
Mr. S. Pandit, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. K.S. Kynjing, Sr.Adv with
Ms. B. Rapsang, Adv
Mr. R. Gurung, GA
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)
The appeal is directed against an order dated August 3, 2022
passed on a writ petition filed by the first respondent.
2. At the outset an objection is taken that the appeal is premature
since the writ petition has not been disposed of by the order impugned.
3. By the order impugned, in effect, the writ petitioner has been
given temporary custody of one Roland Nikhla who is said to be aged,
infirm, mentally unsound and unable to manage his own affairs.
4. To the extent that the impugned order gives even temporary
custody of the said Roland Nikhla to the writ petitioner, there is sufficient
basis for the appellants herein to be aggrieved by the same and to prefer
an appeal thereagainst.
5. It is of some significance that Roland Nikhla was the subject-
matter of a habeas corpus petition carried to this Court which was
disposed of earlier this year upon the whereabouts of the person being
discovered. At the time that the habeas corpus petition was disposed of,
a dispute arose between the relatives of Roland Nikhla as to which set of
them would be entitled to his custody. Since such issue was completely
alien to a habeas corpus petition, the rival parties were given liberty to
take steps in accordance with law in such regard.
6. The writ petition in this case was filed with the following prayers:
"i. to direct the respondent No.4/Superintendent of Police Jowai
to immediately bring back Shri Roland Nikhla to the residence of
the Petitioner at Mookyrdup, Ladthalaboh Jowai, West Jaintia
Hills District, Meghalaya, from where he was illegally removed
by the Respondent No.6 and 7 with the help of Respondent
No.5/Jowai Police without any authority of law.
ii. to act upon the F.I.R. dated 11.02.2022 and F.I.R. dated
14.02.2022 filed by the Petitioner before the Jowai Police Station
as per law.
iii. to take strict action against Respondent No.5 who is the
Officer In Charge Jowai Police.
iv. to take strong action against Respondent No.6 to 8 for
wrongful confinement and ill treatment to Shri Roland Nikhla.
v. and after hearing the parties make the rule absolute.
vi. Any other Order or Orders as deem fit and proper."
7. The writ petitioner made out a case that the fifth respondent to the
writ petition, the Officer-in-Charge of Jowai Police Station, had
wrongfully given custody of Roland Nikhla to the respondent Nos.6 and
7 to the writ petition. Though a case was made out against the Officer-in-
Charge of the Jowai Police Station so as to approach this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution, the real dispute was between the private
parties pertaining to the custody of Roland Nikhla.
8. Since it is the admitted position that the rival claimants seeking
to obtain custody of Roland Nikhla are tribals and since it amounts to a
civil dispute, the rival claimants ought to approach the appropriate
District Council Court in such regard. As it is, when the issue was sought
to be raised at the end of the habeas corpus proceedings, this Court had
given liberty to the rival claimants to take steps in accordance with law.
9. Accordingly, without going into the rival claims and the merits
thereof, the writ petition, WP (C) No.215 of 2022, and the present appeal,
WA No.31 of 2022, are disposed of by giving liberty to the private parties
making rival claims to obtain the custody of Roland Nikhla to approach
the appropriate District Council Court for such court to take up the matter
and deal with the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that the
position obtaining at the moment, pursuant to the order impugned, will
continue till any order is passed by the relevant District Council Court
which is approached in such regard. The District Council Court will give
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the rival parties before making any
interim or final order on the matter.
10. It is made clear that the appropriate District Council Court, if
approached, should deal with the matter in accordance with law and with
utmost expedition without being unduly influenced by the order
impugned herein.
11. There will be no order as to costs.
(W. Diengdoh) (Sanjib Banerjee)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
23.08.2022
"Lam DR-PS"
