Serial No. 02 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Review.Pet.No.18 of 2025 Date of Order: 08.06.2026 The Chief Executive Officer, Shillong Cantonment Board, Shillong …..Petitioner -VERSUS- 1. Shri. Ratan Pradhan, S/o (L) Ram Bahadur Pradhan. R/o 2JB, Cantonment, Shillong, Meghalaya. 2. Shri. Surender Chokhani, S/o (L) Shyamsunder Chokhani R/o 50 CB, Shillong Cantonment, Shillong, Meghalaya 3. The Principal Director, Defence Estates, Kolkata. 4. The Defence Estate Officer, Guwahati Circle, Guwahati. 5. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. 6. The Director General, Defence Estate, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Raksha Sampada Bhavan, New Delhi-10. 7. The Director General, (Cantonment Section), Defence Estate, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, West Block-4 (Wing No.3 & 7) Sector, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066. 8. The Principal Director, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Eastern Command 13, Camac Street, 7th Floor, Kolkata-700017 9. GOC-in-Chief, H.Q. Eastern Command, Fort William, Kolkata-700012, West Bengal. …..Respondents 2026:MLHC:544 Coram: Hon’ble Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S.P. Mahanta, Sr.Adv with Mr. M. Lyngdoh, Adv For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Ch. Gautam, Adv (R:1) Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, Adv (R:2) (ORAL) Heard Mr. S.P. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Lyngdoh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. K.Ch. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and also Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. By this review petition, the petitioner has sought for review of the order dated 22.09.2025 passed in WP(C) No.406 of 2018 and WP(C) No.408 of 2018. The prime contention raised in this petition is that the settlement agreement dated 17.09.2025, basing on which the aforementioned writ petitions were disposed of, was not entered into by an official of the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Mediation Act, 2023. The learned counsels for the respondents resisted the plea of the review petitioner contending that the ground urged on behalf of the petitioner cannot constitute a ground for review of the order. A perusal of the materials on record reveals that the agreement dated 17.09.2025 was entered into between the parties after the review petitioner was represented by an officer who was specifically authorised to negotiate the matter concerning WP(C) No.406 of 2018 and WP(C) No.408 of 2018. Nothing has been mentioned in the order that the said officer would represent the petitioner department in all subsequent proceedings of similar nature. 2026:MLHC:544 Hence, the order dated 22.09.2025 does not in any way alter the provision of the Mediation Act, 2023. As the settlement was attained after the review petitioner was represented by the authorised officer, this Court finds no merit in this review petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Judge Meghalaya 08.06.2026 “Shrity,PS” 2026:MLHC:544 Digitally signed by SHRITY CH MOMIN Date: 2026.06.08 17:28:14 IST