Meghalaya High Court
Shri Saiful Islam vs The State Of Meghalaya Represented By on 24 March, 2026
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
2026:MLHC:265
Serial No. 30
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 308 of 2025
Date of Decision: 24.03.2026
1. Shri Saiful Islam
2. Shri Raziul Islam ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Meghalaya represented by
The Commissioner and Secretary, Community & Rural Development,
Government of Meghalaya, Shillong
2. Additional Mission Director,
State Rural Employment Society, Meghalaya, Shillong
3. The Deputy Commissioner and District Programme
Co-coordinator MGNREGS Tura
4. The BDO and Programme Officer MGNREGS
Demdema C&RD Block, West Garo Hills.
5. Smti Bobita Begum,
R/o Rajpur Village, PO Bhaitbari,
P.S. Phulbari, West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya (President of Raipur Muslim VEC)
6. Smti Smti Shahida Begum
R/o Rajpur Village, PO Bhaitbari,
P.S. Phulbari, West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya (Secretary of Raipur Muslim VEC)
7. Smti Mokleza Begum
R/o Rajpur Village, PO Bhaitbari,
P.S. Phulbari, West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya (Women Member of Raipur Muslim VEC)
... Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 5
2026:MLHC:265
__________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.T. Sangma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. N.G. Shylla, Sr. GA with
Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA (For R 1-4)
Mr. S.K. Hassan, Adv. (For R 5-7)
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 petitioners who are stated to be the job card holders of
Rajpur Muslim VEC, Demdema C&RD Block, West Garo Hills are before
this Court complaining that with regard to the last elections to the VEC
there was no notice scheduling the same, and that the election was not fair
and transparent as, the same was by selection by the raising of hands.
2. Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that with regard to the conduct of elections and tenure of a VEC,
the respondents are required to hold elections for a VEC, which has a term
of 3(three) years by due election process involving all job card holders. In
the present case, he submits the approval was granted to the Rajpur VEC
Page 2 of 5
2026:MLHC:265
vide order dated 10.12.2024, wherein it is recorded that the members who
were selected as new VEC Committee Members was by hand raising in a
meeting. He therefore, submits that there being no notice about the
elections or selections and that the elections procedure being adopted
doubtful, the current VEC is liable to be dissolved and fresh elections be
called for.
3. Mrs. N.G. Shylla, learned Sr. GA for the respondents Nos. 1
to 4, submits that the writ petition is without any substance, inasmuch as,
due elections were conducted, and that the approval dated 10.12.2024, was
as per procedure. It is further submitted that the writ petitioners instead of
airing their grievances by way of a complaint before the BDO, have
directly approached this Court to seek directions for fresh elections, which
is untenable. It is also contended that there are no guidelines to make it
mandatory for elections to a VEC, to be conducted in a specific manner,
but what is necessary is that genuine job card holders are to elect or select
a VEC.
4. Mr. S.K. Hassan, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 5,
6 & 7, who are the current office bearers/functionaries of the new VEC,
has submitted that there has been no mention of the impugned order dated
10.12.2024 in the Cause Title to the writ petition, but the same appears
only in the prayer. He also submits that the writ petition suffers from mis-
Page 3 of 5
2026:MLHC:265
joiner and non-joinder of necessary parties, inasmuch as, the members of
Village Monitoring Committee, which oversee the functions of the VEC,
were also not arrayed as parties. He further submits that the selection of
the VEC was with due process, and arrived at a Gram Sabha meeting,
whereby the new VEC members were elected by consensus, by the raising
of hands. He therefore, submits that no interference is called for and the
writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a bare
perusal of the materials, it is noted that the current VEC of Rajpur has
obtained its approval since 10.12.2024, and as per the submissions is
functioning till date. The submission of the learned Sr. GA is noted that
the writ petitioners though job card holders had never approached the
BDO at any point of time, with regard to any complaint against the said
elections.
6. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is difficult to ascertain as
to whether the complaint of the writ petitioners is founded on any
substantial materials, inasmuch as, in the usual course on a complaint
being made, the BDO concerned, would conduct an enquiry as to the
veracity of a complaint made by aggrieved persons.
7. The only fact that deserves attention is that there was no notice
or schedule with regard to the holding of meeting of the job card holders
Page 4 of 5
2026:MLHC:265
to select the VEC, and it appears that the same was arrived at a meeting of
Gram Sabha held on 03.11.2024, and the selection was also by the raising
of hands of the job card holders.
8. Be that as it may, though no ground for interference has been
made out, it is expected that the BDO, MGNREGS, at least for the sake
of transparency should ensure that notice is circulated before a meeting is
held for selection of a VEC to enable participation of all job card holders,,
and further that the manner of elections or selections should be transparent
and recorded to avoid future disputes.
9. The writ petition on these observations is closed and
accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Meghalaya
24.03.2026
“V. Lyndem-PS”
Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5
Digitally signed by
VALENTINO LYNDEM
Date: 2026.03.24 18:39:26 IST
