p. 1 Serial No. 08 Supplementary List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C) No. 641 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.12.2025 Ex No. 0008136 Const Shyam Sunder, R/o Ward No. 10, House No. 642, Kali Temple, Near Bus Stand, Bharaliya, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The Directorate General BSF, Block 10, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 2. The Inspector General, FTR HQ, Border Security Force, Shillong, Meghalaya 3. The Deputy Inspector General, BSF (Pers), Block 10, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 4. The Commandant, 199 BN BSF. … Respondent(s) Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. H. Yadav, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with Ms. C. Jala, Adv. 2025:MLHC:1187 p. 2 __________________________________________________________ i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc: ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No in press: JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner is before this Court assailing the dismissal order dated 18.04.2024. 2. Mr. H. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon this Court that the delay in filing the instant writ petition was due to the fact that the same was being pursued before the Madhya Pradesh High Court vide WP(C) No. 6089/2013, which came to be dismissed on 04.07.2025, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. He further submits that though a Writ Appeal was preferred thereafter the same was not entertained, as such he is before this Court. 3. Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. C. Jala, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no question of the matter being reopened, inasmuch as, the delay is overwhelming. 2025:MLHC:1187 p. 3 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has also examined the order of dismissal dated 04.07.2025, by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. A reading of Para-2 of the said Judgment reflects that as far back as on 03.07.2017, a week’s time was granted to the counsel for the petitioner to satisfy before that Court about territorial jurisdiction, but however when the matter was called out on the date of judgment i.e. 04.07.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 5. In these circumstances, the matter being hopelessly delayed and beyond redemption, the same is not entertained and is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Meghalaya 08.12.2025 “V. Lyndem-PS” 2025:MLHC:1187 Digitally signed by VALENTINO LYNDEM Date: 2025.12.08 18:39:00 IST