Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040010412022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : CRP/41/2022 Nyumli Ado S/o Late Benyum Ado, Permanent Resident of Village Kombo Jirdin, PO/PS Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh and Presently residing at F and G Sector Itanagar, PO/PS Itanagar, District Papumpare, Arunachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh. Ph. No. 8837255471 VERSUS Atak Kino and 3 Ors. W/o Late Kino Bido, a Permanent Resident of Village Upper Baliso, PO/PS Sijusa, District Pakke Kessang, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:Sukar Kino Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Kino Bida a permanent resident of Village Upper Baliso PO/PS Sijusa District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh and prsesently posted at C/O 99 APO Colonel R.S Karakoti 34 Assam Rifles Srinagar District Ganderbal Kangan Area Srinagar Jammu and Kashmir. 3:Nirmali Nyare Kino Age: 0 Occupation : W/o Shri Sukar Kino Page No.# 2/6 a Resident of Niti Vihar Itanagar PO/PS Itanagar District Papumpare Arunachal Pradesh. 4:All Papum Pare District Gaon Bura and Welfare Association Age: 0 Occupation : a Society registered under Societies Registration Act 1860 through its General Secretary Shri Nabam Tahi a resident of Bage Tinali Near VKV School Nirjuli PO/PS Nirjuli District Papumpare Aruanchal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Kemo Lollen, D Ado,Geli Taye Advocate for the Respondent : Gegum Lollen, T T Tara,Terji Kamchi,Kirmani Lollen,Gamken Bam,Geken Ingo BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 04-02-2025 Heard Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Lollen, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. None appears for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4, despite service of notice. 2. By filing this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Mel order dated 27.08.2022, issued by the General Secretary of the All Papum Pare District Gaon Burah and Buri Welfare Association, a registered society, by which a group of persons including Gaon Burahs have been constituted by Page No.# 3/6 appointing four persons as Judges/Panel for conducting the Mel in connection with the complaint filed by one Kino Welfare Society alleging illicit relation/affair between the petitioner and the respondent No.3. 3. 3. The facts, in brief, leading to dispute and filing of the present revision petition are that the petitioner and the respondent No.3 are working in the Sangay Lhaden Sports Academy, Chimpu, Itanagar and a complaint has been filed by the Kino Welfare Society to the effect that the petitioner and the respondent No.3 are having an illicit affair. Pursuant thereto, the General Secretary of the All Papum Pare District Gaon Burah and Buri Welfare Association convened a Mel by the impugned Mel order dated 27.08.2022, by which a group of persons including Gaon Burahs have been constituted to decide the allegations made against the petitioner and the respondent No.3. 4. Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the provisions of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, submits that since the village authorities are appointed by the Deputy Commissioner for a particular village, a dispute falls under the jurisdiction of that particular village, is to be decided by that village authority. He submits that the registered society which has been constituted and registered like All Papum Pare District Gaon Burah and Buri Welfare Association, is for welfare of the members of such society. Although, the members may consist of Gaon Burahs and Gaon Buris, being the General Secretary of the Association would not have any jurisdiction to constitute or issue Mel order for settlement of the dispute(s). 5. Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the allegations made in the impugned Mel order dated 27.08.2022, is taken to be Page No.# 4/6 true on the face of it, same appears to be an allegation of adultery, to which the village authority has no jurisdiction to try the case in as much as under the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, certain offences to which the village authority can try is clearly specified. Therefore, apart from not having jurisdiction as welfare society and the General Secretary of the Association, they would not have territorial jurisdiction and also the offence alleged is not triable by the village authority. As such, the impugned Mel order dated 27.08.2022 may be set aside and quashed. 6. Mr. G. Lollen, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, fairly submits that indeed the All Papum Pare District Gaon Burah and Buri Welfare Association would not have the jurisdiction to try the complaint, although the members of the Association are Gaon Burahs and Gaon Buris, in stricto sensu. However, since the members of the village authorities are appointed under the law, the members would have a jurisdiction to settle any complaint, arising in their respective jurisdiction. He submits that the allegation appears to be of an adultery, which is not a specified offence triable by village authority under the law. Therefore, he prays that appropriate order may be passed, by setting aside the impugned Mel order. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 8. The village authorities are appointed under Regulation 5 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, which provides that the Deputy Commissioner shall appoint such persons as he considers to be the members of a village authority for such village or villages as he may specify and may modify or cancel any such order of appointment and may dismiss any Page No.# 5/6 person so appointed. Regulation 19 provides that the village authorities may try any case involving theft including theft in a building, mischief not being mischief by fire or any explosive substance, simple hurt, criminal trespass or house trespass and assault or using criminal force, within their jurisdiction. 9. Bare perusal of the above provisions clearly show that the village authorities are appointed for a particular village or villages, as the Deputy Commissioner may specify. It also shows that the village authorities would try only specified offences against those person/persons who is/are residents within their jurisdiction. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent No.3 although are from different districts, but stated to be worked in Sangay Lhaden Sports Academy, Chimpu in Itanagar, within the jurisdiction of the Capital Complex, Papum Pare District. Thus, the village authorities, if appointed for Itanagar, would have jurisdiction to try any dispute, as provided under the 1945 Regulation, provided if the offences are specified in the said Regulation. 10. On perusal of the impugned Mel order dated 27.08.2022, which is admittedly an order issued by a registered society of which the members may be a village authority, namely, Gaon Burahs and Gaon Buris, they would not be enclothed to issue the impugned order constituting a Mel to decide a dispute or an allegation, which is not specified under the Regulation, as it would appear that the allegation is of having illicit relationship of the petitioner and the respondent No.3. 11. Another aspect of the matter, which this Court finds is that the Secretary of the All Papum Pare District Gaon Burah and Buri Welfare Association appears to have constituted by the members, which is of two different districts, for Page No.# 6/6 which this Court fails to comprehend under what authority, the Secretary of the All Papum Pare District Gaon Burah and Buri Welfare Association has constituted the members for conduct of the Mel, much less to issuance of a Mel order. 12. Be that as it may, without further commenting, it appears that the Secretary of the All Papum Pare District Gaon Burah and Buri Welfare Association has acted beyond his jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the law. 13. Having considered above and in view of the provisions as referred hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that the Secretary of the All Papum Pare District Gaon Burah and Buri Welfare Association do not have any jurisdiction to constituted a Mel or for that matter, issue the impugned Mel order dated 27.08.2022. 14. Accordingly, the impugned mel order dated 27.08.2022 is hereby set aside and quashed. It is, however, provided that the parties would be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum, as may be permissible under the law. 15. The revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant