Back
W. DIENGDOH
State of Meghalaya – Appellant
Versus
Albert Steven Diengdoh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
W. Diengdoh, J.
1. This is an application under section 115 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 preferred by the Petitioner/State of Meghalaya in the Department of Mining and Geology, Shillong directed against an order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the Assistant Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) (Sic Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner), South West Khasi Hills District, Mawkyrwat, whereby leave under section 80 (2) CPC was granted to the respondent No. 1/Plaintiff to institute a Title Suit against the Government without serving any Notice upon it as required by sub-section 1 of section 80 CPC.
2. Heard Mr. S. Sahay, learned GA who has, at the outset led this Court to the provision of sub-section 2 of section 80 CPC and has submitted that the requirement of the provision is that the court must assess from the plaint that there are adequate grounds to disclose an urgency that if a notice of sixty days is issued to the Government, then the subject matter of the suit may become infructuous or that there may occur grave and irreparable harm to the plaintiff. However, if the court is satisfied, after hearing the parties that no urgent or immediate relief need to
Point of law: Where Section 80 (2) C.P.C. provides that even though if the leave is granted yet no interim relief will be granted without hearing the State-respondents and in the instant case, the le....
Pre-determined issuance of demand notices violates legal principles requiring fair process, rendering them null and void.
Writ petitions can be maintained against show cause notices if they demonstrate pre-determined conclusions by the authority, constituting a legal mala fide exercise of power.
Statutory authorities must exercise powers independently, and actions based on predetermination or external influence are deemed illegal.
Writs under Article 226 can be maintained against predetermination by authorities, regardless of alternative remedies available, invalidating actions based on extraneous influences.
Point of law: Rule 26(1) of APMMC Rules 1966, Rule 12(5)(h)(iii) of APMMC, 1966 for having excavated and transported 749 cum of Colour Granite without payment of seigniorage fee in contravention to c....
The invocation of urgency provisions in land acquisition must be justified by genuine emergencies; significant delays undermine such claims and violate the right to object.
A suit for correction of record pursuant to established title can proceed beyond limitation, with notice requirements under Section 80 CPC deemed unnecessary if no specific relief against public offi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
