1 Serial No.24 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C). No. 176 of 2026 Date of Decision: 12.06.2026 Shri.Ristarland Chyne S/o (L) Smti D.Chyne, Resident of Sohlap, Shella Village, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. …Petitioner -Versus- 1. Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC), represented by; The Secretary, Executive Committee, Shillong, Meghalaya. 2. Wahadadar, Shella Confederacy, Shella, P.O.Shella, P.S. Shella, East Khasi Hills District. 3. Dorbar Shnong Shella, Represented by its Secretary, Shella Village, P.O.Shella, P.S. Shella, East Khasi Hills District. …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. K.Ch. Gautam, Adv. Ms. C.B.Sawain, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. D.Lyngdoh, Adv. vice Ms. O.A.I.Bang, Adv. for R 1. Mr. R.K.Synrem, Adv. for R 2. Mr. C.C.T.Sangma, Adv. for R 3. 2026:MLHC:577 2 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. Mr. C.C.T.Sangma, learned counsel has entered appearance today on behalf of the respondent No. 3, as such, notice is complete on behalf of all the respondents. 2. It is noted that the petitioner herein who is a Member of the Shella Village Court was removed based on a Resolution dated 30-03-2026, which was intimated to the Village Court on 10-04-2026. 3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner’s removal from the Village Court was without following due process, inasmuch as, he was not given a chance to be heard before the said Resolution was passed. 4. Mr. C.C.T.Sangma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Secretary of Shella Village Dorbar, has submitted that as this is apparent, the impugned order will be recalled by the respondents No. 3 and the matter be closed. 5. Mr. R.K.Synrem, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also endorsed the submissions made by the respondent No. 3, with regard to the 2026:MLHC:577 3 fact that the writ petitioner had not been given opportunity of hearing before the Resolution was passed. 6. Though Ms. D.Lyngdoh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 prays that she may be allowed to file affidavit, it appears that in the circumstances, the same is not necessary. 7. Accordingly, in view of the submissions made by the respondents No. 2 & 3, and without prolonging the matter to await the withdrawal of the impugned Resolution and order by the respondent No. 3, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside, and the matter is closed and disposed of. Judge 2026:MLHC:577 Digitally signed by SAMANTHA ANNA LIYA RYNJAH Date: 2026.06.12 18:34:22 IST