Smti Daplyne Blah vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors.
2024 Latest Caselaw 14 Meg

High Court of Meghalaya

Smti Daplyne Blah vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors. on 5 February, 2024

Author: H. S. Thangkhiew

Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew

Serial No. 02
Regular List
                        HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                              AT SHILLONG

WP(C) No. 6 of 2024
                                           Date of Decision: 05.02.2024

Smti Daplyne Blah                       Vs.   State of Meghalaya & Ors.

Coram:
      Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Chief Justice (Acting)


Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s)        :    Mr. K. Ch. Gautam, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)        :    Mrs. N.G. Shylla, Sr. GA (For R 1-3)

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc:

ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No in press:

JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)

1. Heard Mr. K. Ch. Gautam, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

2. Mrs. N.G. Shylla, learned Sr. GA is present on behalf of

the respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

3. The prayer of the writ petitioner in the present writ

application is for issuance of appropriate directions for an inquiry to be

conducted, on the basis of the representation made by the writ

petitioner for cancellation of the Scheduled Tribe certificate granted to

the private respondent.

4. A perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that the writ

petitioner had approached the office of the Deputy Commissioner with

an objection to the issuance of the Scheduled Tribe certificate, and that

no action has been taken said on the application/representation.

5. Mrs. N.G. Shylla, learned Sr. GA appearing on behalf of

the respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 3, has raised strong objections as to the

maintainability of the writ petition, and submitted that it is not a matter

to be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution. She further

submits that the remedy of the writ petitioner lies with other forums and

not before the High Court, at this stage.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and also

perused the materials on record. It is seen that this matter is at a

premature stage and no mandamus is called for at this stage, in view of

the fact that the writ petitioner has not exhausted other alternate remedy

before the concerned authorities.

7. Accordingly, this matter is disposed of with a direction that

the petitioner is free to pursue other remedies before the appropriate

authorities, for the prayer as made out in the writ petition.

Chief Justice (Acting)

Meghalaya 05.02.2024 "V. Lyndem-PS"