Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 12.03.2026 vs Shri. Niandro Syiemiong on 12 March, 2026
Author: H.S.Thangkhiew
Bench: H.S.Thangkhiew
2026:MLHC:168
Serial No.03
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Review Pet. No. 24 of 2025 in
WP(C). No. 81 of 2024 (disposed of)
Date of Decision: 12.03.2026
Shri. Kynsaiborlang N. Syiem,
The Syiem of Hima Bhowal,
Son of (L) M. K.Bani,
Resident of Ingkyrsa, Mawsynram,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
...Review Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Shri. Niandro Syiemiong,
Syiem of Maharam Syiemship,
Mawkyrwat, South West Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
2. The Khas Hills Autonomous District Council,
Represented by its Secretary
Executive Committee, Shillong,
Meghalaya.
3. The Chief Executive Member,
KHADC, Shillong.
4. The Deputy Secretary to the
Executive Committee,
KHADC, Shillong.
5. The Executive Member,
I/c Elaka Administration,
KHADC, Shillong.
...Respondents
1
2026:MLHC:168
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. K.Paul, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. K.Decruse, Adv.
Mr. B.Snaitang, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H.L.Shangreiso, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. M.Hajong, Adv. for R 1.
Mr. S.Marpan, Adv. for R 2-5.
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. The instant review application has been filed seeking review of the
judgment and order dated 24-11-2025, passed by this Court in WP(C). No.
81 of 2024, whereby it was held that the order in appeal dated 21-12-2023,
passed by the Executive Committee was incompetent as it was signed by
only a single member of the Executive Committee.
2. Mr. K.Paul, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. K.Decruse, learned
counsel on behalf of the review petitioner, has submitted that the review has
2
2026:MLHC:168
been necessitated in view of the fact that it was not brought to the notice of
the Court that the order was infact not signed by a single member of the
Executive Committee, but by the Chief Executive Member. Learned Sr.
counsel has then taken this Court to Rule 28 (1) of the Assam and Meghalaya
Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, to
show that an order passed by the Chief Executive Member would be valid
on any order or instrument, passed or executed by the Executive Committee.
He therefore, prays that in view of the operation of Rule 28, the order be
recalled and the main writ petition be taken up for consideration.
3. In reply, Mr. H.L.Shangreiso, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms.
M.Hajong, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner,
has submitted that Rule 28 will not govern the field, and in fact Rule 31 will
be very much applicable, inasmuch as, there is a collective responsibility of
the entire Executive Committee in hearing such matters.
4. Mr. S.Marpan, learned counsel for the respondents KHADC No. 2 to
5, however, has endorsed the submissions made by learned Sr. counsel, and
submits that in the instant case, as the order had been signed by the Chief
Executive Member and not a single member, the order would be valid.
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also
examined Rule 28. For the sake of convenience, the said Rule is reproduced
hereinbelow:
3
2026:MLHC:168
“Conduct of Executive functions:
28. (1) The executive functions of the District
Council shall be vested in the Executive
Committee.
(2) All orders or instruments made or
executed by the Executive Committee shall be
expressed to be made by or by order of the District
Council. Every such order or instrument shall be
signed by the Chief Executive Member or any
other Members of the Executive Committee
authorized in writing by the Chief Executive
Member in this behalf and such signature shall be
deemed to be the proper authentication of such
order or instrument.”
6. A perusal of the above noted Rule, especially Rule 28 (2), would show
that though other members of the Executive Committee would have to be
authorized in writing, in the case of the Chief Executive Member, such
authorization is not necessary, and he would be competent to sign the order
in his own capacity.
7. Further, it is noted that the Act under which the instant case had arisen
i.e. Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Elaka) Act, 1991,
has since been amended, wherein section 10 has been added with regard to
delegation of powers, and it has been provided therein, that the Executive
Committee while hearing matters under the Act, by order or notification, can
empower two or more members, to exercise on its behalf, any power or
powers conferred upon by the Act. However, as it is submitted that this
amendment has come into effect only on 09-10-2024, whereas the impugned
4
2026:MLHC:168
order in question was passed as far back as on 21-12-2023, as such, in the
considered view of this Court, the said amendment, though very relevant,
will have no application in the instant case .
8. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the review application is
hereby allowed and the order dated 24-11-2025 shall stand recalled. WP(C)
No. 81 of 2024 shall be restored to file, and be listed for further orders.
9. Review application accordingly stands disposed of.
Judge
Signature Not Verified 5
Digitally signed by
SAMANTHA ANNA LIYA
RYNJAH
Date: 2026.03.12 17:20:57 IST