High Court of Meghalaya
Deipormi Dkhar vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors on 19 February, 2024
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
Serial No.03
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WA No.4/2024 with
MC (WA) No.3/2024
Date of Order: 19.02.2024
Deipormi Dkhar Vs. State of Meghalaya & ors
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Mr. S. Sen, Adv with
Mr. R. Majaw, Adv
Ms. S. Shallam, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. A. Kumar, Advocate General with
Mr. N. Syngkon, GA
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes
JUDGMENT:
(Made by Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order
of the learned Single Judge dated 13.02.2024, in and by which, the
interim relief sought for had been declined by holding that the entire
matter of the writ petition needs to be heard at the earliest point of time.
2. According to the Writ Petitioner, who is the appellant
herein, he had initially entered into a License agreement dated
17.12.2017 for running a weighbridge at Amsarin on the Jowai-Dawki
Road with the State respondents for a period of three years and
subsequently, the same had been extended for further period of two
months. As the period of license had elapsed, the appellant/writ
petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition in WP
(C) No.2 of 2021 for renewal of the agreement and this Court, by an
order dated 09.05.2022 directed the State respondents to consider the
renewal application, pursuant to which, the State respondents, by an
order dated 30.05.2022 renewed the agreement and a fresh agreement
was executed as early as on 01.06.2022 for a period of three years. All of
a sudden, the renewal period was shortened / curtailed by an order dated
14.07.2023, issued by the Respondent No.3, whereby the period of
renewal was reduced till 20.06.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, a Writ
Petition in WP (C) No.299 of 2023 was filed by the writ petitioner and
during the pendency of the writ petition, an interim order of status quo
was directed to be maintained.
3. According to the writ petitioner, the Respondent No.3
violated the interim order passed by this Court by reducing the period
which was initially extended for a period of three years based on the
Court order. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this
Court to the objection filed by the State respondents in WP (C) No.2 of
2021 dated 27.04.2022 wherein, in paragraph 5, it has been stated that
the renewal application would be considered in terms of Rule 7 of the
Meghalaya Installation, Regulation, Maintenance and Operation of
Weighbridge Rules, 2009 and point 2 to Clause (iii) of the Meghalaya
State Policy for Weighbridges, 2018 after scrutiny of the records.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that having accepted the
representation/application for renewal of the said lease agreement in
respect of Amsarin weighbridge, the Commissioner Transport had issued
an order dated 30.05.2022, directing the writ petitioner/appellant to pay
the renewal fee of Rs.250/- by way of treasury challan so as to facilitate
signing of the agreement in respect of the said weighbridge. Learned
counsel further submitted that the act of the State respondents in
reducing the period, which was initially extended by three years by an
order dated 14.07.2023 and thereafter, informing the writ
petitioner/appellant that the extension of agreement for operation of the
weighbridge at Amsarin only up to 30.09.2023, is erroneous. He further
submitted that even otherwise the order dated 30.09.2023 curtailing the
period only upto 30.09.2023 was withdrawn by a letter dated
14.07.2023, which means that the earlier order granting extension for a
period of three years would come into operation.
4. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, the writ petitioner
has no objection in putting forth his submissions in the writ petition
before the learned Single Judge and in view of non-extension of status
quo order as well as non-deployment of persons in weighbridge has been
causing inconvenience and great prejudice. Since the appellant/writ
petitioner has every chance to succeed the writ petition, the non grant of
interim order would be prejudicial to the appellant. Hence, learned
counsel prayed that as an interim measure, the appellant/writ petitioner
may be permitted to operate the weighbridge in terms of the agreement
till the writ petition is heard and disposed of finally.
5. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State
respondents contended that in terms of Rules 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Rules
of 2009, no permission had been obtained from the Commissioner &
Secretary of Transport, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong. Learned
Advocate General further contended that initially the appellant/writ
petitioner was granted three years license in 2017 and further extension
would be construed only upto the year 2023, not beyond that. It is no
doubt true that during Covid period, a periodical extension had been
given, which was purely as per Rules referred to supra. The
appellant/writ petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, demand automatic
extension of his lease agreement. Since the entire matter has got to be
addressed before the learned Single Judge, learned Advocate General
stated that he does not want to rely upon various other provisions
touching upon the merits of the matter and that the writ appeal against
the interim order has to be rejected with a direction to the appellant/writ
petitioner to address the arguments before the learned Single Judge.
6. Heard both the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that the appellant/writ petitioner was
initially granted a licensee in 2017 for a period of three years to run a
weighbridge with periodical extension. Subsequently, there was a
renewal of license for a period of three years in the year 2022, which,
according to the writ petitioner, expires only in 2025. A cursory glance
at the pleadings creates a cloud of suspicion as to whether the writ
petitioner had obtained any permission for such extension in terms of
Rules 6 and 7, which has been duly referred to by the learned Single
Judge with an observation that the writ petition needs to be heard in
detail. Hence, we are of the view that the interim order sought for by the
appellant/writ petitioner cannot be granted at this stage. Thus, while
rejecting the appeal, we permit the parties to address arguments both
factually and legally with the available materials before the learned
Single Judge. We, at the most, request the learned Single Judge to take
up the matter at the earliest point of time and decide the issue. We
hereby make it clear that any observation made hereinabove touching
upon the merits of the matter in this appeal has no barring, when the writ
petition is heard by the learned Single Judge.
8. In the result, WA No.4 of 2024 is dismissed.
9. MC (WA) No.3 of 2024 is disposed of.
(W. Diengdoh) (S. Vaidyanathan)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
19.02.2024
"Lam DR-PS"
