Eken Riram And Anr vs. Motu Riram

Held

The Court held that the HGB-cum-President, GBWS, Laparada District, had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned summons dated 13.07.2024 and 29.07.2024, nor did they have the authority to pass the impugned ex-parte Inter Village Keba order dated 07.08.2024. The Court found that the jurisdiction to decide the complaint lodged by the respondent lay with the Essi Chiku Village authority and not with the Inter Village Territorial Customary Court or the HGB-cum-President, GBWS, Laparada District. The Court reasoned that by issuing the summons and the ex-parte order, the GBWS had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, as supported by the concession of the respondent's counsel and the perusal of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court's Act, 2021. Consequently, the Court set aside and quashed the impugned summons and the ex-parte order. The respondent was granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the GST dispute itself.

Facts

The petitioners, Eken Riram and Karsen Riram, challenged summons and an ex-parte order issued by the HGB-cum-President, Gaon Burah Welfare Society (GBWS), Laparada District. The respondent, Motu Riram, had filed a complaint alleging non-payment of GST Tax amounting to Rs. 4,83,500/- for construction work. The GBWS issued summons for an 'Inter Village Keba' (a customary court proceeding) on July 13, 2024, and July 29, 2024, directing the petitioners to appear with evidence. The petitioners objected, stating the matter fell under the jurisdiction of their village authority, not an inter-village court. Despite this, the GBWS proceeded and passed an ex-parte order on August 7, 2024, directing the petitioners to pay Rs. 3,86,723.84 as GST.

Key Issues

1. Whether the HGB-cum-President, GBWS, Laparada District, had the jurisdiction to issue summons dated 13.07.2024 and 29.07.2024 to the petitioners under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, considering the provisions of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021? 2. Whether the HGB-cum-President, GBWS, Laparada District, had the jurisdiction to pass the ex-parte Inter Village Keba order dated 07.08.2024? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioners argued that the HGB-cum-President, GBWS, Laparada District, lacked the power and jurisdiction to issue the impugned summons and the ex-parte order. They contended that the matter should have been tried by their village authority and that the GBWS had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, thus requiring the summons and order to be set aside and quashed. Respondent's Contentions: The respondent's counsel conceded that the HGB-cum-President, GBWS, Laparada District, did not have the jurisdiction to issue the summons or pass the ex-parte order as per the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court's Act, 2021. The respondent agreed that the GBWS had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law and supported the setting aside and quashing of the impugned documents. However, the respondent requested liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal.