Anarkali vs State Of Meghalaya Through The Commissioner & Secretary, Community & Rural Development Department, Government Of Meghalaya, Shilong-793001 & Ors

H. S. Thangkhiew, J

Heard Mr. S.R. Lyngdoh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Issue notice.

Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Mr. E.R. Chyne, learned GA is present and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 5, so no further notice is called for in respect of these respondents.

Mr. S.K. Hassan, learned counsel who is present in Court today has submitted that he will be representing the respondent No. 6, the successful candidate in the VEC elections.

Mr. S.R. Lyngdoh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 30.04.2025, elections across the bifurcated blocks to respective Village Employment Councils (VECs), have been held. The learned counsel further submits that the instant VEC concerns the VEC of Rajabala, which is shown at No. 3, of the notification dated 31.10.2025. It is submitted that no proper verification was carried out before the elections were held, and moreover, the name of the respondent No. 6, who is the winning candidate, is reflected in a different household Job Card. He therefore, prays that the result of the elections be not notified, and fresh re-verification be conducted.

Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG has vehemently opposed the writ petition and has submitted that no material has been placed for consideration or are the allegations backed by any substance whatsoever. He further submits that bald allegations cannot be the basis for seeking any interim or final relief.

Mr. S.K. Hassan, learned counsel who is present on behalf of the respondent No. 6, submits that the entire writ petition is frivolous, inasmuch as, the writ petitioner who was the contesting candidate had secured only 24 votes, as opposed to 136 votes by the winning candidate. He therefore, submits that the writ petition deserves no consideration and the same should be dismissed at the threshold itself.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also examined the materials on record, it is correct as submitted by the learned AAG that a bare petition with no supporting materials has been filed, except from only impugning the notification dated 31.10.2025, notifying the elections.

In these circumstances at this stage, this Court finds the writ petition incompetent and the same is dismissed, however with a liberty to the writ petitioner to file afresh, if the said allegations can be substantiated in a proper and cogent manner.