Meghalaya High Court
Shri Bryllyenhenry Syiemiong vs . Khasi Hills Autonomous on 10 April, 2026
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
Serial No. 02
Supplementary List-I
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 159 of 2026
Date of Order: 10.04.2026
Shri Bryllyenhenry Syiemiong Vs. Khasi Hills Autonomous
District Council & Ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Caveator(s) : Mr. Philemon Nongbri, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. P.S. Nongbri, Adv. (For R 1-3)
Mr. G.J. Nongphud, Adv. (For R 4)
Heard Mr. Philemon Nongbri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Issue notice.
Ms. P.S. Nongbri, learned counsel is present and accepts notice on
behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 3, and Mr. G.J. Nongphud, learned
counsel is present on behalf of the respondent No. 4 (caveator), so no
further notice is called for.
The grievance of the writ petitioner is with the notification dated
08.04.2026, whereby the petitioner who is the Acting Syiem of Hima
Langrin has been removed, and the respondent No. 4, appointed in his
place.
Page 1 of 3
It is submitted by Mr. Philemon Nongbri, learned counsel for the
petitioner that the appointment of the respondent No. 4 is in violation of
Section-9 of The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Nomination and
Election of the Syiem, Deputy Syiem and Headman of Langrin
Syiemship) Act, 2007. Section-9 he submits, mandates that any adult male
belonging to the Syiem clan to occupy the office of the Acting Syiem, the
same is to be on the recommendation of the Syiem clan. It is further
submitted that this requirement which is mandatory has not been fulfilled
in the instant case and the removal of the petitioner is in direct violation
of the Act, itself. He therefore, submits that interim orders are called for
at this stage.
Ms. P.S. Nongbri, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1, 2 &
3, in reply has submitted that the Acting Syiem has no vested right to
occupy the post, and the removal was as per the stipulation contained in
Section-9 of the Act, as the recommendation for appointment of the
respondent No. 4, has been received, but the same could not be placed on
record, as the instant matter has been moved today itself.
Mr. G.J. Nongphud, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4,
submits that he is handicapped as he has just received a copy of the writ
petition, however he has endorsed the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 3.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is noted that though
the impugned order for removal is not on record, a notification dated
08.04.2026, whereby the writ petitioner has been removed and the
respondent No. 4, appointed in his place has been annexed to the writ
petition. This Court has also examined the provision of Section-9, which
mandates that any Acting Syiem belonging to the Syiem clan is to be duly
recommended by the Syiem clan, to function as such. It is also noted that
Page 2 of 3
this stipulation is reinforced in Section 9(2), where it has been provided
that no Acting Syiem shall be appointed without the recommendation of
the Syiem clan.
In this backdrop therefore, in the absence of any materials to the
contrary, though it is stated that the recommendation has been received
from the Syiem clan, a prima facie case has been made out for issuance of
interim orders.
Accordingly, it is provided that until the next date, the notification
dated 08.04.2026, removing the petitioner shall not be given effect to.
List this matter on 17.04.2026.
JUDGE
Meghalaya
10.04.2026
“V. Lyndem-PS”
Page 3 of 3