Alok Das v. The Syiem/Acting Syiem of Sohra Syiemship

a a a Serial No. 69-112 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG

WP(C) No. 352 of 2022 with WP(C) No. 353 of 2022 WP(C) No. 354 of 2022 WP(C) No. 355 of 2022 WP(C) No. 356 of 2022 WP(C) No. 357 of 2022 WP(C) No. 358 of 2022 WP(C) No. 359 of 2022 WP(C) No. 360 of 2022 WP(C) No. 361 of 2022 WP(C) No. 362 of 2022 WP(C) No. 363 of 2022 WP(C) No. 364 of 2022 WP(C) No. 365 of 2022 WP(C) No. 366 of 2022 WP(C) No. 367 of 2022 WP(C) No. 368 of 2022 WP(C) No. 369 of 2022 WP(C) No. 370 of 2022 WP(C) No. 371 of 2022 WP(C) No. 372 of 2022 WP(C) No. 373 of 2022 WP(C) No. 374 of 2022 WP(C) No. 375 of 2022 WP(C) No. 377 of 2022 WP(C) No. 378 of 2022 WP(C) No. 379 of 2022 WP(C) No. 380 of 2022 WP(C) No. 381 of 2022 WP(C) No. 382 of 2022 WP(C) No. 383 of 2022 WP(C) No. 384 of 2022 WP(C) No. 385 of 2022 1a a

WP(C) No. 386 of 2022 WP(C) No. 387 of 2022 WP(C) No. 388 of 2022 WP(C) No. 389 of 2022 WP(C) No. 390 of 2022 WP(C) No. 391 of 2022 WP(C) No. 392 of 2022 WP(C) No. 393 of 2022 WP(C) No. 394 of 2022 WP(C) No. 395 of 2022 WP(C) No. 396 of 2022

Date of Decision: 04.10.2023

Chanchal Debanth

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Hiralal Deb

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Pronob Sarkar

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Niklesh Malakar

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Abhinash Deb

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Bipul Das

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Dilip Ranjan Dey

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Samar Sarkar

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Amio Das

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Hirok Roy

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Bishnu Paul

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Sujit Das

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Monoranjan Das

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Bakul Das

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Biplob Dey

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship

Ramakanta Chanda

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Probito Das

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Alok Das

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Bikash Das

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Adhir Das

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Sandeep Dey

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Rahul Roy

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Ashish Debnath

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Sudhangshu Das

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Abhinash Deb

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Pradeep Sinha

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Himadri Roy

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Subroto Das

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Sanjib Das

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Sajib Debnath

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Nripesh Dey

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Milon Kumar Das

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Shankar Dey

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Monju Das

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Ankur Das

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Jhuntu Das

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship

Nripesh Dey

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Debashish Dey

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Binayak Roy

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Mintu Debnath

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Atul Das

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Moloy Das

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Ranatlal Dey Alias Ratanlal Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship Sanjay Chakraborty

Vs.

The Syiem/Acting Syiem of

Sohra Syiemship

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Dey, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Dr. F.L. Nonglait, Adv. (For R 1)

Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, Sr. Adv. with

Ms. C. Nongkhlaw, Adv. (For R 2)

i) Whether approved for reporting in

Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication in press:

Oral:

¶1This batch of writ petitions which deal with the issuance of Trading Licenses under the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District

(Trading by Non-Tribals) Regulation, 1954, is a second round of litigation before this Court. Whereas, in the first round, the writ petitioners were aggrieved with the non-issuance of an NOC by the respondent No. 1, which had effectively stalled the process of renewal, in these writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved with the requirements stipulated in the form format issued by the respondent No. 1 for grant of NOC, which they assert are not relevant, and without any authority of law.

¶2The petitioners who are all non-tribals are stated to be permanent residents of Majai area, Sohra Syiemship, engaged in the trade of supply and sale of limestone, non-basmati rice, fruits, etc. Due to an incident, which had created a law-and-order situation on

28.02.2020, in Ichamati village, requisite NOCs was not issued by the respondent No. 1 (Syiem of Sohra) to the petitioners, to enable them to apply for renewal of their Trading Licenses under the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District (Trading by Non-Tribals) Regulation, 1954.

¶3The earlier writ petitions were then disposed of by order dated

16.12.2021, wherein this Court at Paras – 10 to 14 directed as follows. "10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These applications, it is noted have been filed after the petitioners have exhausted all other efforts as is evidenced by the Annexures appended to the writ

petition, which apart, from including the earlier trading license issued by the respondent No. 4 contain numerous representations made before the respondent No. 5 and the other respondents, apart from other State functionaries; minutes of meetings and resolutions that had been arrived at, on various dates with the District Administration and others. It appears that, they have approached this Court as a last resort. The factors that have led to the non-consideration of their applications for renewal of their trading licenses need not be gone into, in this present proceeding, but it would suffice to say that, for whatever reasons, the rights as enshrined in the Constitution of India cannot be deprived from any citizen. Article 21 of the Constitution ensures the Protection of Life and Personal Liberty, and the Right to Life is a basic human right. Article 21 has since also encompassed the Right to Livelihood.

¶11In the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, which is a celebrated and a path breaking case, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court has held and implied that "right to livelihood" is borne out of the "right to life", as no person can live, without the means of living, that is, the means of Livelihood. It follows therefore that if the right to livelihood, is not considered and treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of

depriving a person of his right to life, would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood.

¶12The writ petitioners are traders which is their livelihood and the non-renewal of their trading licenses of the eligible applicants, will no doubt result in the deprivation of their right to livelihood. In this backdrop therefore, it would be expedient for the ends of justice, if this entire batch of writ petitions are disposed of at this stage itself with the directions and as undertaken by the respondents No. 4 and 5, the process for renewal licenses be taken up and completed expeditiously.

¶13Accordingly, the respondent No. 5 is directed to complete the process of issuance of NOCs to all the eligible applicants within 3(three) weeks from the date of receipt of this order and the respondent No. 4 thereafter, on receipt of the applications for which NOC has been obtained shall process the same within 4(four) weeks thereafter.

¶14Till such process is completed by the respondents No. 4 and 5, the writ petitioners shall not be restrained in any manner from plying their trade due to non-renewal of their trade license."

¶4It appears that the respondent No. 1, thereafter had embarked upon the exercise for grant of NOC and had devised the format which the petitioners are aggrieved with, as they allege that the same was

beyond the scope of the respondent No. 1, to prescribe such requirements such as the furnishing of documents regarding mining leases, permanent residential certificates from the office of the Deputy Commissioner etc, which they contend were not material for the purposes of issuance of an NOC.

¶5As the process was taking an unreasonably long time, Contempt Applications alleging non-compliance of the order dated

16.12.2021, were also filed by the writ petitioners. In the course of hearing, however, an on a detailed examination of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District (Trading by Non-Tribals) Regulation, 1954, it was noticed by this Court that, that Section 3A, which contains the conditions for granting or refusing a license, with regard to a recommendation, or in this case NOC, it has been provided at Section 3A(e), that the application was to be recommended by the village Headman after being duly approved by the local Dorbar. The entire exercise therefore, which had been gone into by the writ petitioners before the respondent No. 1, the Syiem of Sohra, for grant of the NOC, was therefore an exercise in futility, inasmuch as, the Syiem of Sohra, being the Chief had no role to play, as per the Regulation.

¶6At the time of hearing, Dr. F.L. Nonglait, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, on this aspect had also fairly submitted and

conceded that, perhaps in the grant of NOC, respondent No. 1, would not have any role to play, as on the recommendation of the Village Headman, the application for grant of Trading License was to be dealt with by the issuing authority, that is, the respondent No. 2, the KHADC.

¶7Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, learned Senior counsel at this juncture, in the course of deliberations, on instructions received, had then submitted that as the matter had been long pending, the Respondent District Council was ready to take up the matter of renewal of the Trading Licenses of all the petitioners and to deal with the same in accordance with the Regulation, provided the writ petitioners submitted their applications before the respondent No. 2.

¶8Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioners on the suggestion of the learned Senior counsel, has also expressed the willingness of the writ petitioners to directly approach the respondent No. 2, in the matter of renewal of their Trading Licenses, but however, submits that a time frame be prescribed by this Court, so that the matter be not left in limbo any longer.

¶9Having heard the learned counsels for all the parties, and having given due consideration to the facts and circumstances of these cases, this Court appreciates the stand taken by all the counsels

for the parties to resolve the present imbroglio. As such, without lingering with the matter any longer, it is hereby directed as follows:-

(i) All the writ petitioners in these writ petitions, shall apply individually for renewal of their respective Trading Licenses, by submitting their applications before the Office of the Secretary to the Executive Committee, KHADC, within 4(four) weeks from the date of this order, that is by 1st November, 2023.

(ii) On receipt of the said applications, the respondent No. 2, shall dispose of the same within a period of 8(eight) weeks thereafter. It is also provided that, the respondent No. 2, in this exercise, shall nominate and authorize a Special Officer, to process the said applications and to put up the same before the Licensing Authority, for further necessary action.

(iii) It is further directed that, in the examination of the applications, the same shall be conducted in a fair and transparent manner, and the writ petitioners be afforded adequate opportunity by the respondent No. 2, to clarify any issue that may arise.

(iv) The process of issuance of renewal or grant of fresh Trading License shall be done strictly in accordance with the provisions of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District (Trading by Non-Tribals) Regulation, 1954.

¶10With the above noted directions, the instant writ petitions, accordingly stands disposed of. However, it is provided that, till such process is completed by the respondent No. 2, the petitioners herein, shall not be restrained from conducting their legitimate business, due to the non-renewal of their Trading License.

¶11There shall be no order as to costs. Judge

Meghalaya

04.10.2023 "D.Thabah-PS"