By Our Reporter
SHILLONG: KHADC chief executive member P.N Syiem on Wednesday said the District Council would either file a petition in the High Court for review of its ruling on the Limitation Act or opt for a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court.
“There are two options for the district council. We can file a review petition in the High Court or a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. We are still exercising our mind,” Syiem told reporters on Wednesday.
Earlier in the day, the Hynniewtrep National Youth Front (HNYF) met Syiem to raise the issue of applicability of the Limitation Act 1963 in the State.
Highlighting the implications of the ruling on the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution and also on the powers and functions of the district councils, HNYF president Sadon Blah referred to the ruling of the High Court of Meghalaya on April 12 on the applicability of the Limitation Act.
“We feel there is a need for the District Council to appeal against the ruling whether in the High Court or a Division Bench of the High Court or the Supreme Court. However, it all depends on the wisdom of the KHADC as it is a legal matter,” he told reporters on Wednesday.
The Limitation Act, 1963 is a legislation that governs the period within which suits are to be filed, with relevant provisions for delay, condonation etc. The Act prescribes limitation so as to ensure that a litigant does not drag on the litigation. Section 5 gives an opportunity to a litigant to file applications beyond the prescribed period of limitation provided he is able to establish that he was prevented by sufficient cause from approaching the court within the said period.
Even though courts do not insist on explanation for day-to-day delay, the litigant has to nevertheless furnish satisfactory explanation for filing the application beyond the prescribed period of limitation. This responsibility on the part of the litigant is much more in cases of abnormal delays, for by such delays rights come to be vested in his/her adversary and such a right cannot be easily taken away by a liberal approach of the Court.
Incidentally, at the time of passing of the Act it was clearly mentioned that the Act would apply in all states of India except Jammu and Kashmir. At the time Meghalaya was no yet created. After its creation, no exemption was sought by the state for exemption of the Limitation Act.
Blah said this is an Act of Parliament and added that questions were raised as to whether or not the Act is applicable in tribal areas/scheduled areas of the state. “If we refer to the William Mynsong case the stand of the Supreme Court is that the Limitation Act cannot be applied in the tribal areas,” he said.
Again referring to the letter of the Secretary, Law Department, Government of Meghalaya dated May 22, 1989, which was addressed to the regional manager-II, State Bank of India (regional office), Blah said that the letter clearly indicated that the Limitation Act does not apply in Meghalaya.
Substantiating his views further, he said that even the notification of the Assam government published on March 14, 1966 states that the Limitation Act was not applicable in tribal areas. “On the part of the Court, it said that the Act was applicable after we secured a separate state,” he said.
He added that the matter on the Act was brought up in a bid to redefine the status of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution and the District Council should immediately appeal to protect the rights of the indigenous people.
When asked why the limitation Act cannot be applicable to Meghalaya, Blah said if an Act of Parliament is made applicable in the state without taking into consideration the Acts framed by the District Council as empowered by the Sixth Schedule, then there is no significance of having the Sixth Schedule.