Authority: High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong

Order Date: 28.10.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Shiliangktieh West Association, a society registered under the Meghalaya Societies Registration Act XXI of 1983 and Act XII of 1983, Registration No. SR/SWA-1/23 of 2023, dated 21 November 2017, represented by its President Shri Denis Ryntathiang, office at Shiliangktieh Village, Nongspung Syiemship, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya‑793121.
  • Respondents:

1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Government of India, Red Hill Road, Laitumkhrah, Shillong‑793003.

2. The Geological Survey of India, North Eastern Region, represented by the Additional Director General & Head of Department, Lumshngain, Rynjah, Shillong‑793006.

3. Stores Manager/Tender Inviting Authority, Columbus Marbaniang, Geological Survey of India (GSI), North Eastern Region (NER), Rynjah Main Road, Lumshngain, Shillong‑793006.

4. M/s Ngerson & Sons, TSS Road, Mawlai Nongkwar, Shillong‑793017.

  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition (WP(C) No. 464 of 2026) filed by the Association alleging that its tender, claimed to be L‑1 category, was rejected without proper justification.
  • Legal Representation: For the petitioner – Mr. S.P. Mahanta, Senior Legal Aid Counsel, with Ms. S. Chettri, Advocate. For the respondents – Dr. N. Mozika, ASGI, with Ms. M. Myrchiang, Advocate.
  • Procedural Background: The Court, after the petition was posted for motion, ordered the High Court Legal Services Committee to submit a report on whether the Association was eligible for legal aid and under what circumstances it approached the Court.
  • Report Findings (dated 27.10.2026): The Committee observed that the legal‑services application form did not indicate that an Association was seeking aid; it only listed the name of an individual, Denis Ryntathiang, as the signatory. Moreover, the application failed to specify the forum before which legal aid was sought.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the petition was incomplete and that relevant facts were not disclosed. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Topics: Legal Proceedings, Tender Dispute