Sonalin M. Sangma and Anr v. The State of Meghalaya and 5 Ors

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG

WA No. 47 of 2025 with MC(WA) No. 70 of 2025 Date of order: 22.10.2025

¶1Sonalin M. Sangma

¶2Smti Jenny A. Marak ….Appellants -versus -

¶1The State of Meghalaya, represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Community & Rural Development Department, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.

¶2The Deputy Commissioner & District Programme Coordinator, (MGNREGS), West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.

¶3The Block Development Officer (BDO) (MGNREGS), Demdemma C&RD Block, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.

¶4Smti. Dainilla Sangma,

W/o: Rengstone Marak,

R/o: Alokdia Village, P.S.: Tikrikilla,

District: West Garo Hills, Meghalaya.

¶5Smti. Selony Ch Marak,

W/o: Nemso Ch Marak,

R/o: Alokdia Village, P.S.: Tikrikilla,

District: West Garo Hills, Meghalaya

¶6Smti. Nethmy Momin,

W/o: Albert N. Sangma,

R/o: Alokdia Village, P.S.: Tikrikilla,

District: West Garo Hills, Meghalaya …Respondents Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Soumen Sen, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Serial No. 04 Daily List

Appearance: For the Appellants : Mr A.H. Hazarika, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mrs T. Yangi B, AAG with

Mr E.R. Chyne, GA [for R1-3]

Mr P.T. Sangma, Adv. [for R4-6]

i) Whether approved for

reporting in Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication

in press:

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)

The appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single judge on 20.06.2025.

¶2The writ petitioners claimed to be the erstwhile President and Secretary of the Alokdia VEC. The writ petition was dismissed on the basis of a letter disclosing in the affidavit filed by the State containing a resignation letter dated 24.09.2024 duly singed by the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that initially the private respondents have forced the appellants to put signatures on a letter. However, after complaint being filed by the appellants, the original resignation letter was returned to the appellants meaning thereby that the said resignation letter was nowhere acted upon or was not intended to be given effect to by the private respondents for the purpose of constitution of the said VEC.

¶3Learned AAG appearing for the State respondents has submitted that she is not in a position to either admit nor deny that the letter produced by the private respondents is a photostat copy of the original or that the original letter was submitted by the private respondents for seeking reconstitution of the said VEC. The learned AAG further submitted that this issue was never raised before the learned single judge.

¶4The learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that the appellants have forged the signatures of various job holders and they try to continue with their present position or status before the expiry of the term which is three years.

¶5After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the State respondents shall decide this issue after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties and upon verification of the record. Till such time, the reconstituted VEC shall function.

¶6We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter as we are of the view that the State respondents shall upon on enquiry being conducted in this regard and upon ascertaining the fact as to whether the appellants continued beyond the period of three years shall take appropriate decision within a period of eight weeks from date.

¶7With the aforesaid observations, the appeal and the application [MC(WA) No. 70 of 2025] are disposed of.

(W. Diengdoh) (Soumen Sen)

Judge Chief Justice

Date: 2025.10.22 19:45:39 IST