GEORGE DOHTDONG v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR.
Court: High Court of Meghalaya
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. THANGKHIEW
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Meghalaya judgment dated 2024-04-08. GEORGE DOHTDONG v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Serial No. 06 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C) No. 90 of 2024 Date of Decision: 08. 04. 2024 Shri George Dohtdong, S/o (L) Kek Pathaw, R/o Mawlai Nongpdeng, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. …. Petitioner(s) - Versus - 1. State of Meghalaya, Represented by the Superintendent of Police, Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya 2. The Officer in Charge, Umiam Police Station, Meghalaya. … Respondent(s) Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. L. Langi, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. T. Yangi B, AAG with Ms. R. Colney, GA ________________________________________________________ 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. Heard Ms. L. Langi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Issue notice. 3. Mrs. T. Yangi B, learned AAG assisted by Ms. R.
Colney, learned GA is present and accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents, so no further notice is called for. 4. The grievance of the writ petitioner as set out in the writ petition is that the petitioner who is stated to be the son of one Shri Kek Pathaw, who was allegedly killed in 2002, and the brother of Michael Dohtdong, who was also killed in 2006, is not aware of what had happened with regard to the investigation, or outcome of the two incidents. 5. Ms. L. Langi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a representation was filed on 11. 03. 2024, seeking some information, but the same has not been forthcoming. She prays that the respondent No. 1, be directed to afford some information to the petitioner, with regard to the outcome of the cases. 6. Mrs. T. Yangi B, learned AAG assisted by Ms. R. Colney, learned GA for the respondents has submitted that the cases are of the year 2002 and 2006, and much time has elapsed.
However, in all fairness she submits that the Superintendent of Police may be directed to afford any information available to the writ petitioner. The learned AAG further submits that even the FIR about the alleged incident, has not been annexed to the writ petition. 7. Be that as it may, in view of the nature of the representation, the Superintendent of Police is directed to supply any information available to the writ petitioner, with regard to the cases. 8. With the above directions, this matter stands disposed of. JUDGE Meghalaya 08. 04. 2024 “V. Lyndem-PS”
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.