High Court of Meghalaya

Dorbar Shnong Laitsohum vs State Of Meghalaya on 17 May, 2024

Author: H.S.Thangkhiew

Bench: H.S.Thangkhiew

Serial No.10
Regular List

                     HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                         AT SHILLONG

WP(C). No. 9 of 2024
                                             Date of Decision :17.05.2024

Dorbar Shnong Laitsohum
Represented by its Headman,
Nonglwai Sirdarship,
East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
                                                           ...Petitioner

               Vs.

  1. State of Meghalaya
     Represented by the Secretary
     State Public Engineering Department
     Shillong.

  2. The Chief Engineer (P.H.E.)
     Lower Lachumiere,
     East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.

  3. The Sub-Division Officer (P.H.E.)
     Mawsynram Division
     East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.

  4. The Syiem (Chief)
     Mawsynram Syiemship,
     East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.

  5. Dorbar Shnong Phutphanblei
     Represented by its Headman
     Mawsynram Syiemship,
     East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.


                                                        ...Respondents

                                   1
 Coram:
             Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge.

Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) :          Mr. K.V. Kharlyngdoh, Adv.
                                           Mr. S.Singphoo, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)            :         Mr.N.Syngkon, GA for R 1-3.
                                           Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, Adv. for R 4.
                                           Mr. E.Nongbri, Adv. for R 5


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. When the matter was taken up today, Mr. N.Syngkon, learned GA

on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1-3 has submitted that the matter can be

closed, inasmuch as, the Public Health Engineering Department has taken

remedial measures to ensure water supply in the village. He has drawn the

attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the State respondents in this

regard, wherein at paragraphs 8 and 9, which is supported with

photographs, details of the source and pumpsets which had been installed,

have been given. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said affidavit is reproduced

hereinbelow:

"8. That a new water supply scheme for Laitsohum Village, namely "Laitsohum Water Supply Scheme"

                   was      sanctioned    vide     Order      No.     NO.
                   SPVS.3/6/CN/Water       Supply/2020-21/11,       dated

03.06.2020, at an estimated cost of Rs. 1,48,41,900.00 (Rupees One crore forty eight lakhs forty one thousand and nine hundred) only. The said water supply scheme is sanctioned under the Special Purpose Vehicle Society (SPVS).

9. That the "Laitsohum Water Supply Scheme" is designed for providing Functional Household Tapped Connections to all 52 households in Laitsohum village. It is further stated that the Scheme is 100 percent completed and presently commissioning, trial and testing of pumpsets for supplying water to all households is in progress."

2. However, Mr. K.V.Kharlyngdoh, learned counsel for the petitioner

has submitted that though the water scheme is now in place, the supply is

inadequate to meet the needs of the village.

3. As the bone of contention is only with regard to the supply of water,

any shortfall or inadequacy is to be taken up by the villages with the

authorities themselves. Accordingly, on the basis of the affidavit filed by

the State respondents, this writ petition is closed at this stage and stands

disposed of.

4. However, the writ petitioner, if still aggrieved, may take up the

matter with the authorities, and it is given liberty to approach this Court if

a fresh cause of action, should arise.

5. Accordingly, matter stands disposed of.