Facts
The applicant, who was not a party to WP(C) No. 160 of 2025, sought leave to review the order dated 20 March 2026 in MC (WPC) No. 50 of 2026. That order recorded an amicable settlement between the writ petitioner and certain respondents, supported by a written and notarised Settlement Deed.
Source reference: p.3The applicant claimed an interest in the dispute, said he had been unaware of the writ proceedings and settlement, and pointed to a related proceeding pending before the Deputy Chief Executive Member, GHADC.
Source reference: p.3The respondents submitted that the settlement had been reached independently, outside court, and was not under challenge.
Source reference: pp.3–4Issues
Whether a person who was not a party to the writ proceedings should be granted leave to seek review of the order recording the parties’ settlement.
Source reference: p.3Whether granting leave to review would serve any purpose where the settlement was reached independently out of court and the applicant could challenge it before the competent authority.
Source reference: pp.3–4Law Applied
The judgment cites no statute, precedent, or specific review doctrine.
Source reference: no citationThe court’s reasoning applied the case-specific principle that granting leave to seek review may be futile where the order records a settlement reached independently out of court, the settlement itself is not under challenge, and the applicant has an available avenue to contest it before the competent authority.
Source reference: pp.3–4Reasoning
Although the court noted that the applicant had not been a party to the original proceedings, it considered that the settlement was independently reached outside court and was not made under the court’s orders or directions.
Source reference: pp.3–4The parties also maintained that the settlement was not under challenge. In those circumstances, the court considered leave to review a futile exercise and identified the pending proceedings before the competent authority as the appropriate forum for the applicant to challenge the Settlement Deed.
Source reference: p.4Holding
The court declined to grant leave to file a review, holding that doing so would be futile.
It left the applicant at liberty to approach the competent authority and challenge the Settlement Deed in the pending proceedings. The miscellaneous application was closed and disposed of.
Source reference: p.4Original Court PDF
SAPPAR CH. MARAKvsTHE GARO HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL (GHADC) AND ORS.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
