Boston Ch. Marak vs State Of Meghalaya & Anr

W. Diengdoh, J

Heard Mr. A.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that a complaint was made by the respondent No. 2 herein before the Lokayukta under the relevant provisions of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014. Consequent thereof, the Hon’ble Lokayukta has directed that the allegation made by the complainant therein be looked into by the Court of the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Special Judge (PC Act) Tura, West Garo Hills, taking cognizance of the said direction, had also impleaded the petitioner herein as accused No. 1 amongst 13(thirteen) accused persons. The case before the learned Special Judge (PC Act) has been registered as Special (PC Act) No. 1/2023.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has however submitted that the petitioner has challenged the said proceedings before the learned Special Judge (PC Act), on the basis that such proceedings are not contemplated under any law or any provision of any Act, inasmuch as, the Hon’ble Lokayukta could not have directed such proceedings to be taken up by the said Special Judge (PC Act) when there is a clear provision under the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act for constitution of a Special Court to take up such complaints which was not done so. However, at this point of time, the learned counsel has submitted that pending final hearing of this writ petition, the proceedings against the petitioner before the Court of the learned Special Judge (PC Act) may be stayed. This submission was fortified by reference to an order dated 04.11.2025 passed by this Court in MC(W.P.Crl.) No. 6 of 2025, wherein under similar and identical facts and circumstances, this Court, while observing the submission made by the learned applicant therein, had in effect suspended further proceedings before the learned Special Judge (PC Act) in the case related to the applicant therein. Therefore, on grounds of parity, prayer is also made that similar order may be passed as far as this case is concerned.

Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Ms. R. Colney, learned GA for the State respondent No. 1 has not made any strong objection to the prayer for stay of the proceedings before the learned Special Judge (PC Act), since similar order has been passed vide the said order dated 04.11.2025(supra). However, the learned AAG has raised the issue of proper and necessary party in this lis, inasmuch as, the Lokayukta, who was instrumental in the proceedings before the learned Special Judge (PC Act), has not been made a party herein. Be that as it may, the learned AAG further submits that perhaps, this issue will be raised when the main petition is taken up for consideration.

On the presence of the respondent No. 2, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, notice has already been issued upon such respondent, however, affidavit of service could not be filed today and some more time is prayed for.

Since the main writ petition has already been admitted and in this Misc. Case, the only issue is with regard to the stay of the proceedings before the learned Special Judge (PC Act) in Special (PC Act) No. 1/2023, therefore, since a similar order dated 04.11.2025 has been passed in this regard, accordingly, in this Misc. Case too, the proceedings against the petitioner in the said Special (PC Act) No. 1/2023 is hereby stayed, the same to be in operation until the next returnable date.

List this matter on 29.01.2026.