High Court of Meghalaya
Shri. Deipormi Dkhar vs State Of Meghalaya on 20 May, 2024
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
Serial No. 04
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 8 of 2024 Date of Decision: 20.05.2024
Shri. Deipormi Dkhar,
S/o (L) M. Challam,
R/o Dulong Jowai,
West Jaintia Hills District,
Meghalaya :::Petitioner
-Vs-
1. State of Meghalaya,
Represented by Chief Secretary,
Shillong
2. The Commissioner & Secretary of
Transport, Government of Meghalaya,
Shillong
3. The Commissioner of Transport,
Government of Meghalaya,
Shillong
4. The District Transport Officer,
Government of Meghalaya,
West Jaintia Hills District,
Jowai :::Respondents
1
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Sen, Adv. with
Mr. R. Majaw, Adv.
Mr. S.K. Roy, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Kumar, AG with
Mr. N. Syngkon, GA
Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
1. The petitioner by way of this third writ petition is before
this Court assailing the actions of the respondents in withdrawing the
official staff from the weighbridge of the petitioner located at Amsarin,
West Jaintia Hills, and for directions to order the respondents to act in
accordance with the renewal agreement for the said weighbridge dated
01.06.2022, and also for compliance of the order dated 16.01.2024,
passed by the respondent No. 3.
2
2. The background facts are that the petitioner was settled
with a lease of a weighbridge at Amsarin, vide lease agreement dated
07.12.2017, for a period of 3(three) years in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 7 of the Meghalaya Installation, Regulation,
Maintenance & Operation of Weighbridge Rules 2009, and the said
period was to expire on 06.12.2020. The said agreement by letter dated
10.12.2020, was renewed till the period ending 31.12.2020, on the
same terms and conditions, and it is the case of the writ petitioner that
they had diligently paid all the installments due as payable, and had
also applied for renewal of the lease which however, apart from the
letter dated 10.12.2020, no further response was received from the
respondents. The writ petitioner on the lease not being formally
renewed, then filed writ petition being WP(C) No. 2 of 2021, which
was disposed of by judgment dated 09.05.2021, with a direction to the
writ petitioner to approach the respondents for consideration for
renewal. The lease agreement was then renewed for a period of
3(three) years w.e.f. 01.06.2022 to 31.05.2025. The respondents then
vide letter dated 14.07.2023, communicated to the petitioner that the
said lease would be extended only to 30.09.2023. The petitioner being
aggrieved thereby, assailed the said letter by way of WP(C) No. 299 of
3
2023, and this Court then by order dated 28.09.2023, directed that
status quo be maintained until the next date, which thereafter was
continued by another order dated 08.12.2023.
3. The respondents then by letter dated 16.01.2024,
withdrew the impugned letter dated 14.07.2023, but on 01.02.2024, all
the official staff employed in the said weighbridge were relieved
therefrom and posted in another weighbridge by the name of Amjeha
weighbridge, which as per the writ petitioner, has dislocated the
operation of his weighbridge, and in effect had rendered it inoperable,
as the said staff were necessary for stamping the weighment slips,
which were issued to the vehicles. As such, the instant writ petition
seeking the reliefs as aforementioned, has been preferred by the writ
petitioner.
4. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that with the
withdrawal of the earlier impugned letter dated 14.07.2023, under
challenge in WP(C) No. 299 of 2023, the lease agreement which was
to be effective till 31.05.2025 stood restored, and as such without any
speaking order, the withdrawal of the official staff posted in the
weighbridge of the petitioner was uncalled for and unwarranted. It has
also been argued that the settlement of weighbridges is governed by
4
the Rules of 2009 and Rule 5 thereof, provides for certain conditions to
be fulfilled before a weighbridge is installed, such as the same being
placed before the respondent No. 2 (Commissioner & Secretary,
Transport) as per Rule 6 of the said Rules, who is then to sign the
agreement with the successful bidder, as provided by the Meghalaya
State Policy for Weighbridges, 2018, which supplement the Rules. The
extended lease dated 14.07.2023, it is contended though a stance has
been adopted by the State respondents that the signatory thereto was
incompetent to execute the same, cannot render the renewed lease
void, inasmuch as, the agreement is a statutory agreement and it cannot
be said that there was no approval or sanction from the competent
authority. The case of Timber Kashmir Private Ltd. vs. Conservator
of Forest, Jammu reported in (1976) 4 SCC 497, has been cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioner to press his case that if the sanction
was either expressed or implied, given by, or on behalf of the
Government, once there has been a valid execution of lease by duly
authorized officer, the documents would be the best evidence of the
sanction.
5. Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner has also
referred to the affidavit sworn by the respondents in WP(C) No. 2 of
5
2021, with regard to consideration for renewal and has further
submitted that the impugned order dated 14.07.2023, which was under
challenge in WP(C) No. 299 of 2023, was never communicated to the
petitioner nor the petitioner afforded an opportunity of hearing, which
is in violation of the principles of natural justice, especially taking into
account the fact that the agreement is a statutory agreement, which as
per Article 299, cannot be cured by a post decisional hearing. It has
been further submitted by the learned counsel that the order under
challenge dated 14.07.2023, was ostensibly passed pursuant to a letter
dated 20.06.2023, issued by the Deputy Secretary, Transport
Department, which was also was never furnished to the writ petitioner.
As such, he submits the lease having validly been extended, the
respondents have acted arbitrarily in curtailing the term apart from not
affording any opportunity to the writ petitioner in violation the
principles of natural justice.
6. Mr. A. Kumar, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.
N. Syngkon, learned Government Advocate for the respondents has
submitted that the agreement dated 01.06.2022, does not confer any
right on the petitioner, as the same had been entered by the respondent
No. 3 (Commissioner of Transport), who is not authorised in terms of
6
the Meghalaya Installation, Regulation Maintenance & Operation of
Weighbridge Rules 2009, inasmuch as, the same can be renewed only
with the permission of the Government under Rule 3 read with Rules 6
& 7 of the Weighbridge Rules. The learned Advocate General has then
submitted that a bare perusal of the earlier agreement dated
07.12.2017, would show that only after permission had been granted
and the Commissioner duly authorised that the agreement had been
entered into. In contrast he submits, the agreement dated 01.06.2022,
does not contain any declaration or statement that the Government had
accorded permission to the Commissioner of Transport, or authorised
him to enter into an agreement with the petitioner. The agreement
dated 01.06.2022 he contends, is against the statutory rules i.e.
Weighbridge Rules, 2009 and as there is no authorization to the
Commissioner of Transport to enter in to the agreement on behalf of
the Government, there is no compliance with Article 229 of the
Constitution, and as such the same cannot bind the Government.
7. It is also submitted that in the case of Kmenlang Suiam
vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors. reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Gau 86,
the Gauhati High Court while interpreting the Meghalaya Weighbridge
Rules had held that the granting a permission is sine qua non for the
7
installation and operation of a weighbridge. In the instant case he
submits, no permission from the authorised authority was sought and
no permission has been issued by the competent authority which
makes the agreement dated 01.06.2022 violative of Rule 6 of the
Weighbridge Rules which provides that only the Secretary, Transport
Department is authorised to issue permission after the Commissioner
of Transport forwards an application. In the instant case he contends,
there was no application by the Commissioner of Transport under Rule
4, and no certificate was issued under Rule 7 of the Weighbridge
Rules, which deals with the renewal of permission. With regard to the
authority, it has been submitted that as per the Rules of Executive
Business of the Government of Meghalaya, only the Minister and other
authorised officers have the power to enter into instruments in the
name of the Governor, and in this regard has referred to Rule 9 of
these Rules. The State therefore, he submits is not bound by acts of
unauthorized officers and in this regard has cited the following
judgments:-
i) Bhikraj Jaipuria vs. Union of India (1961) SCC OnLine SC
34
ii) Union of India & Ors. vs. N.K. Private Limited & Anr.
(1973) 3 SCC 388
8
iii) Glock Asia-Pacific Limited vs. Union of India (2023) 8
SCC 226
8. On another limb of argument, he submits no tender had
been issued prior to the agreement dated 01.06.2022, which is in
contravention of Rule 3 of the Meghalaya Weighbridge Rules, which
provides that the State may install or maintain by itself as many
weighbridges only after calling for tender and fulfilling the conditions
of Rules 4, 5 & 6, thereof. The petitioner, the learned Advocate
General submits, no longer has any right to operate the weighbridge,
inasmuch as, from the initial agreement a period of 6 years was already
over in December 2023, and as such there could have been no further
renewal without calling for bids from the public as provided by the
Rules. The agreement being contrary to statutory Rules therefore, he
contends is non est in law as a contract cannot override a statute. In
support of this contention, the learned AG has cited the following
decisions:-
i) Anil Kumar Singh vs. Commissioner, Entertainment Tax,
U.P & Ors., 1997 SCC OnLine All 514
ii) Arumugam Chelliah Paul vs. Life Insurance Corporation
of India, 1989 SCC OnLine Bom 275
9
9. The learned AG has further submitted that without
prejudice to the other submissions, the petitioner has not challenged
the letter dated 20.06.2023 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Transport
Department, the competent authority granting extension only upto
30.09.2023, and that as this letter has not been withdrawn and still
subsists, the agreement therefore stands terminated with effect from
30.09.2023. He submits that the consequential order cannot be
challenged without challenging the basic order and that it was not open
to this Court to quash an order that is not under challenge. Reference
has been made to the decision in the case of Edukanti Kistamma &
Ors. vs. S. Venkatareddy & Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 756, to press this
point. The learned AG has also argued that the agreement is not is a
statutory contract as it has not been made under the Rules, and that the
dispute being contractual, no relief can be sought by invoking the writ
jurisdiction of this Court. He lastly submits that the Government has
the right to establish weighbridges as per the Rules of 2009, and the
non-mention of Amjeha weighbridge in the notification of 2018, will
not vitiate the matter in any manner. The petitioner he lastly submits
has no enforceable legal right and the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
10
10. Heard learned counsels for the parties. This matter from
the submissions and materials placed, has raised many issues before
this Court that have to be examined, inasmuch as, the three writ
petitions i.e. WP(C) No. 2 of 2021, WP(C) No. 299 of 2023, and the
instant writ petition WP(C) No. 8 of 2024, being intertwined and
interconnected, it has made the dispute between the writ petitioner and
the respondents multi-dimensional. To address the same, it would be
useful to first look at the writ petitions aforementioned 3(three) writ
petitioners, and the prayers sought therein, as also the orders passed by
this Court in the course of the proceedings and the subsequent orders
that followed from the respondents, as well as their actions. In the first
writ petition i.e. No. WP(C) No. 2 of 2021, the writ petitioner had filed
the writ petition with a prayer for extension of renewal of the lease
which was due to expire to 06.12.2020. The said writ petition, on an
affidavit filed by the State respondents, wherein it was stated that the
petitioner was advised to approach the Transport Department for
favourable renewal, which was to be considered taking in view Rule 7
of the Weighbridge Rules, 2009 and Point 2(iii) of the Meghalaya
State Policy for Weighbridges 2018, was then disposed of by order
dated 09.05.2022. By the said order, this Court directed the writ
11
petitioner to approach the State respondents, with an appropriate
application which was to be considered within a period of 1(one)
month. Thereafter, by order dated 30.05.2022, the Commissioner of
Transport (Respondent No. 3) directed the writ petitioner to pay the
renewal fees of Rs. 250 by 31.05.2022. Strangely however, it was
recorded in the order that the same was passed in compliance with the
directions of this Court, when no such direction was ever passed by
this Court in the order dated 09.05.2022. The order of this Court
dated 09.05.2022, as well as order dated 30.05.2022 of the respondent
No. 3, being relevant are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 1 of 2021 with
WP(C) No. 2 of 2021
WP(C) No. 3 of 2021
Date of Order: 09.05.2022
Smti Bhahi Dkhar Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Shri. Deiphormi Dkhar Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Shri. Mayalang Lanong Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s):Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. A. Kharshiing, Adv.
12
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Sen, Sr. GA with
Ms. S.A. Laloo, GA
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
ORAL
1. These batch of writ petitions have been filed for renewal and
continuation of the existing agreement between the state and the
petitioners for running the weighbridges.
2. It appears that the petitioners are still running the
weighbridges and as per the affidavit of the state respondents as
indicated in paragraph 5, the renewal of the petitioners' licenses will
be considered in the event that an appropriate application is
submitted before the state respondents.
3. In view of the circumstances and the affidavit as placed, Mr.
H.L. Shangreiso, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners submits that
the writ petitions can be closed.
4. Accordingly, it is directed that the writ petitioners to approach
the state respondents with an appropriate application within a week
which is to be considered expeditiously preferably within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
5. With the above noted directions, these writ petitions stand
closed and disposed of."
Sd/-
JUDGE
13
"GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT
MEGHALAYA::SHILLONG
No. Com/Trans/WP(C)/8/2021/307, Dated Shillong the 30th May, 2022.
ORDER
The Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya while passing
Judgment in WP(C) No. 1 of 2021, Smti Bhahi Dkhar - Vs - State of
Meghalaya & Ors, WP(C) No. 2 of 2021, Shri Deipormi Dkhar - Vs -
State of Meghalaya & Ors. and WP(C) No. 3 of 2021, Shri Mayalang
Lanong - Vs - State of Meghalaya & Ors., dated 09.05.2022 has
directed the Petitioners to approach the State respondents i.e., the
Transport Department with an appropriate application within a week
which is to be considered expeditiously preferably with a period of
one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of its order. The
office of the Commissioner of Transport, Shillong thereafter received
the copy from the petitioner on 11.05.2022 which has been processed
and forwarded in original to the Transport Department on the 11 th
May, 2022 vide letter No. Com/Trans/WB(Pynursla)/1/2018/117, No.
Com/Trans/WB(Amsarin)/2/2016/398, No. Com/Trans/WB(G.
Saphai)/4/2018/96, and vide letters dated 20.05.2022 No.
Com/Trans/WB(Pynursla)/1/2018/126,No.Com/Trans/WB(Amsarin)/
2/2016/399 and No. Com/Trans/WB(G. Saphai)/4/2018/97 for further
action as directed by the Hon'ble High Court.
Therefore in order to comply to the directions contained in the
Hon'ble High Court Order the petitioners is hereby directed to pay
the Renewal Fee of Rs. 250/- by Treasury Challan positively by 31st
May, 2022 so as to ensure enable signing of Agreement in respect of
weighbridge at (i) Iewsyiem (ii) Amsarin and (iii) Garampani.
Sd/-
(I.W. Ingti, I.A.S.)
Commissioner of Transport
Meghalaya, Shillong
Memo.No.Com/Trans/WP(C)/8/2021/307-A, Dated Shillong the 30th May, 2022
Copy to :
1. The Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Transport
Department for favour of information.
2. Smti Bhahi Dkhar,
3. Shri Deipormi Dkhar for compliance to the above order
4. Shri Mayalang Lanong
Sd/-
Commissioner of Transport
Meghalaya, Shillong"
11. An agreement was then executed on 01.06.2022 for
another 3(three) years which was to expire on 31.05.2025 between the
writ petitioner and the State respondents and the same was signed by
the respondent No. 3. Thereafter, this arrangement came to be curtailed
by letter dated 14.07.2023 issued by the respondent No. 3, making the
agreement valid only upto 30.09.2023, which gave birth to the second
writ petition being WP(C) No. 299 of 2023, wherein directions were
sought for declaring the letter dated 14.07.2023 illegal and further to
allow the writ petitioner to deposit the instalments for the license fees.
This Court then while examining the matter, by order dated
08.12.2023, directed the State respondents to produce the relevant
records and documents in connection with the renewal of the
agreement which were referred to in the renewal order dated
30.05.2022 (Annexure 9 to WP(C) No. 299 of 2023). It is noteworthy
to mention herein that, in the impugned letter dated 14.07.2023,
reference has been made to a letter dated 30.09.2023 which conveyed
the decision of the Government with regard to the renewal. This is
pertinent, in view of the fact that as per Rule 6 of the Weighbridge
Rules 2009, it is the Secretary to the Transport Department who is the
competent authority for issuance of permission, inasmuch as, Rule 3 &
4, vests the power of installation of weighbridges and permission to
grant establishment to private entities with the Government.
12. In the intervening period however, the respondent No. 3 by
order dated 16.01.2024, withdrew the letter dated 14.07.2023 but
however, thereafter, withdrew the official staff stationed at the
weighbridge of the writ petitioner which then led to the instant writ
petition (WP(C) No. 8 of 2024). The petitioner's complaint by this last
writ petition is for directions to the State respondents to act in
accordance with the renewal agreement dated 01.06.2022.
13. In the factual situation as portrayed above, it is first to be noted
that the initial Lease Agreement was executed on 17.11.2017, for a
period of 3(three) years, which expired on 06.12.2020. As per the
stipulation of Rule 7 of the Weighbridge Rules, a permission granted
for installation of a weighbridge under Rule 6, is renewable every
3(three) years. In the case of the petitioner, admittedly the Lease
Agreement or permission had expired on 06.12.2020, and on the non-
renewal of the permission, WP(C) No. 2 of 2021 had been filed, and
the same was disposed of by order dated 09.05.2022, with directions as
quoted above. The order of renewal dated 30.05.2022, which has been
reproduced above, on a bare perusal, states that the application of the
petitioner had been processed and forwarded to the Transport
Department for consideration, but in the last paragraph, has issued the
order for renewal citing therein, that the same is in compliance with a
direction issued by this Court. As observed earlier, there were no
directions issued by this Court for renewal, but only for consideration
thereof. Interesting to note at this juncture, is that, the Commissioner
of Transport as can be seen from the records by a letter dated
20.05.2022, had written to the Transport Department, the following
letter.
GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT
MEGHALAYA::SHILLONG
No. Com/Trans/WB(Amsarin)2/2016/399, Dated Shillong, the 20th May, 2022
From: Shri. I.W. Ingty, I.A.S.,
Commissioner of Transport,
Meghalaya, Shillong.
To The Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya,
Transport Department.
Subject: Renewal of Agreement for the Weighbridge at Amsarin
near Sohkha Model (Jowai - Dawki Road)
Reference: No.Com/Trans/WB(Amsarin)/2/2016/398, dt. 11-05-2022.
Madam,
In inviting a reference to the letter on the subject cited
above, I am to inform that the Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya,
Shillong vide its Judgment Order dated 09-05-2022 has directed to renew
the Agreement for the Weighbridge at Amsarin near Sohkha Model
(Jowai - Dawki Road) and giving a specific period within a month from
the date of receipt of the Certified Copy of the Order i.e 11-05-2022 and
which was forwarded to Government on the same day.
In this regard, Government is requested to kindly accord
approval for renewal of the Agreement as per directions of the Hon'ble
High Court of Meghalaya, Shillong to avoid contempt of Court Order.
Yours faithfully,
(Shri. I.W.Ingty, I.A.S.),
Commissioner of Transport,
Meghalaya, Shillong.
14. The letter dated 20.05.2022, is indeed disturbing, inasmuch as,
the Commissioner of Transport for reasons unknown has sought
renewal of the agreement by mentioning that renewal was to be
granted as per directions of this Court, to avoid contempt, when no
such direction was ever passed. Thereafter, the agreement dated
01.06.2022, was then executed with the said Commissioner of
Transport, being the signatory on behalf of the respondents. A
comparison of the earlier agreement dated 07.12.2017 and the new
agreement dated 01.06.2022, has also revealed certain discrepancies,
such as, it nowhere reflects that the agreement was renewed, after due
permission as envisaged under Rule 3 read with Rule 6 and 7 of the
Weighbridge Rules was granted. In the agreement dated 01.06.2022, it
is simply put as follows, "The GOVERNOR of Meghalaya represented
by Commissioner of Transport, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong
(hereinafter referred to as 'The Government' which expression shall
include the successors-in-office and administrators, assigns) of the
First Part. No declaration exists as recorded in the initial agreement
dated 07.12.2017, wherein it has been stated that the licensee was
given permission to set up the said weighbridge by the Government.
For the sake of convenience, Rule 3, 6 and 7 of the Weighbridge Rules
are reproduced herein below.
"3. Installation of weighing devices.--The Government may
install and maintain by itself as many weighbridges for the
purpose of section 144 of the Act on such places as it may think
necessary or may allow any private person, body of persons,
company or organization to install and maintain such
weighbridges on payment of lease amount to be determined in
each case by the Government after calling tender :
Provided that no lease shall be granted permission to any
private person, body of persons, company or organization
unless after fulfilling all criteria as laid down in rules 4, 5 & 6
of these rules and permission from the Government in
Transport Department is obtained.
6. Commissioner of Transport to forward the application to the
Secretary Transport Department.-- After satisfying himself
that the application is complete and meets the requirement as
laid down in the aforesaid rules 4 and 5, the Commissioner of
Transport shall forward the application with all required
informations to the Secretary of Transport Department for
issue of permission.
7. Renewal of permission.--Any permission referred to in Rule
6 above, shall be renewable every 3 (three) years and no such
permission shall be granted or renewed unless the proposal for
the grant or renewal of permission, as the case may be, is
accompanied by the certificate issued by the Inspector of
Weights and Measures, Government of Meghalaya as to the
accuracy and correctness of the device."
15. In this context, reference can be made to the judgment, in the
case of Kmenlang Suiam vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors. reported in
2011 SCC OnLine Gau 86, wherein it has been held that granting of
permission under the Weighbridge Rule was essential, Para - 26, 37
and 44 being relevant, are quoted herein below.
"26. What is, however, of paramount importance to note is that
unless permission was granted under the executive instructions
aforementioned or is granted under 2009 Rules (since after
2009 Rules have come into force), the question of a
weighbridge being installed or operated by a party does not
arise at all. Granting of permission, under 2009 Rules, too, is,
therefore, sine qua non for installation and operation of
weighbridges and, consequently, a lease cannot be granted
unless permission is granted or a lease cannot be renewed
unless the permission itself is renewed.
37. The meeting also resolved that the permission for setting up
of check gates on the National Highways, should, henceforth,
be given only with recommendation from the State Government
and not from the Head of the Department. Before such a
recommendation is made by the State Government, the Public
Works Department and the Transport Department of the State
Government shall jointly decide and make recommendations
after taking into consideration the proposal.
44. It is, now, of immense importance to note that it is, indeed,
legally permissible for the State Government, even under 2009
Rules, not to renew permission for installation or operation of
weighbridge if the decision, as regards non-renewal of
permission, is in public interest. In the case at hand, the
petitioner has not been able to show that the decision of the
Government not to grant renewal of permission, in its meeting
held on 2.6.2010, is against public interest or based on no
rational cause."
16. Therefore, as held in the above judgment, about the necessity of
fulfilling certain conditions as provided by the Weighbridge Rules, the
agreement dated 01.06.2022, which does not contain the requirements
as provided in Rule 6 or Rule 7, it can safely be held that the same was
entered into without the sanction or permission of the competent
authority. It is also important to note that, in the minutes of a meeting
held on 02.06.2010 of the Government (Annexure - 2 to the writ
petition), which was chaired by the Chief Minister, a decision at Para-5
thereof, also established the procedure that "Permission for setting up
check gates on a National Highway should henceforth be given only
with recommendation from the State Government and not from the
Head of Department...." As such, from the discussions above, it is
clearly established that, the agreement entered into by the
Commissioner of Transport with the writ petitioner, apart from being
without any authority, is also vitiated for an incorrect and misleading
interpretation of the order of this Court.
17. The writ petitioner has sought to make out the case that, the
agreement dated 01.06.2022, entered into is a statutory agreement
within the defination of Article 299 of the Constitution of India, which
would make it binding in nature. However, in view of the absence of
any express authority sanctioning the renewal, the Commissioner of
Transport in entering into the agreement without being authorized,
Article 299 of the Constitution cannot be said to have been complied
with. It also may be noted herein that, the Rules of Executive Business
of the Government of the State of Meghalaya at Rule 10(12) has also
stipulated as follows.
"10(12) Orders or instruments of the Government of the State
shall be expressed to be made in the name of the Governor and
shall be signed either by the Chief Secretary, a Principal
Secretary, Commissioner and Secretary, a Secretary, an
Additional Secretary, a Joint Secretary, a Deputy Secretary, an
Under Secretary or such other officer as may be authorized by
the Government and such signature shall be deemed to be the
proper authorization of such order or instrument."
The absence of any authorization and also by operation of the
Rules of Executive Business of the Government of Meghalaya, thus
renders the agreement invalid and unenforceable, and will not cloak
the writ petitioner with any vested right or any actionable claim for
continuance on the basis of the said agreement dated 01.06.2022. In
this context reference may be made to the judgment cited by the State
respondents in the case of Glock Asia-Pacific Limited vs. Union of
India(supra), where at Para - 14, it has been held as follows.
"14. It must be emphasized that Article 299 only lays
down the formality that is necessary to bind the
Government with contractual liability. It is important to
note that Article 299 does not lay down the substantial
law relating to the contractual liability of the
Government, which is to be found in the general laws of
the land. It is for this reason that, even though a
contract may be formally valid under Article 299, it may
nevertheless fail to bind the Government if it is void or
unenforceable under the general provisions of law."
18. Inspite the agreement being clearly unauthorized, the Transport
Department by letter dated 20.06.2023, however, had conveyed its
approval for extension till 30.09.2023, which on then being conveyed
to the writ petitioner by letter dated 14.07.2023, as remarked earlier
had given rise to WP(C) No. 299 of 2023. The letter dated 20.06.2023,
in the view of this Court, would amount to giving a seal of approval to
the renewal of permission or license of the writ petitioner, on the basis
of a patently incompetent agreement, though for a limited period. No
explanation has been given by the State respondents for the said letter
and nor has the same been challenged by the writ petitioner, even
when the same subsequently had come to his knowledge. The situation
was thereafter compounded, with the issuance of letter dated
16.01.2024, whereby the letter dated 14.07.2023, impugned in WP(C)
No. 299 of 2023, was withdrawn, but shortly thereafter, the official
staff necessary for operation and validation of weighment slips were
withdrawn, and according to the petitioner had rendered the
weighbridge inoperable, which resulted in WP(C) No. 8 of 2024 being
filed. The action of the State respondents in withdrawing the official
staff and posting them in another weighbridge, ostensibly managed and
operated by the Government, was also during the operation of status
quo orders passed in WP(C) No. 299 of 2023, which has raised serious
questions, as to their bonafides, in the entire episode.
19. This situation which has been primarily caused by the
respondents, with the writ petitioner also being a direct beneficiary,
inasmuch as, a lease that was to terminate in 3 years was still made
valid for over 6 years, surely demands that the respondents embark
upon a course correction, especially considering the overwhelming
aspect that public interest and revenue that has been adversely affected.
This observation is due to the fact that in the entire sequence of events,
there has been clear violation of the Weighbridge Rules, especially in
the manner of renewal, wherein the orders of this Court have been
misinterpreted by the then Commissioner of Transport, which has
raised grave doubts as to the motive behind the same, and whether the
same was made to give undue benefit to the writ petitioner. This action
which the other State respondents have sought to wash their hands off,
by attributing the same to be an act of an unauthorized officer, and as
such, are not bound by the same, is also viewed with a certain degree
of skepticism, inasmuch as, no action has been taken till date
departmentally or otherwise against the said officer.
20. Another aspect of concern, is the method adopted by the
respondents to nullify WP(C) No. 299 of 2023, where by one hand the
letter impugned dated 14.07.2023 was withdrawn, thus taking away the
cause of action, but on the other hand, withdrawing the official staff,
which were needed for operation of the writ petitioner's weighbridge.
Though it is correct that Rule 3 of the Weighbridge Rules, invests the
Government with the power to install and maintain as many
weighbridges as it may think necessary, the manner in which the
official staff were removed from Amsarin, and placed at Amjeha
weighbridge, which is stated to be a Government installation, when
status quo orders passed by this Court were in operation is not in good
taste. Though it may be held not to be in direct contempt of the order
of this Court, as the functioning of the petitioner's weighbridge was
still allowed to continue, vide the recall of the order dated 06.01.2024,
the same is viewed in a dim light by this Court, and is highly
deprecated. State action in their dealings in such cases, especially
when it involves commercial interest, should not only be fair and
above board, but the transparency and reasonableness of such dealings
should be reflected in such actions. Unfortunately, as observed earlier,
in the entire sequence of events, the conduct of the State functionaries,
either by the then Commissioner of Transport and later by the orders of
the Transport Department itself, speaks very poorly about the state of
affairs, which necessarily demand a relook and a course correction to
be undertaken in public interest and for the good of the State.
21. Therefore, looking into the totality of the circumstances of the
case, and the nature of the renewed agreement dated 01.06.2022, the
reliefs as prayed by the petitioner cannot be acceded to or allowed.
22. Accordingly, this writ petition is not entertained and the same is
dismissed. This judgment having taken into consideration, WP(C) No.
299 of 2023, and findings rendered thereon, will also cover the said
case.
23. However, in view of the actions of the other State respondents,
especially the then Commissioner Secretary Transport, the respondent
No. 1 (Chief Secretary) shall be at liberty to initiate a review to affix
responsibility and take appropriate action, to ensure fairness and
reasonableness of future actions in such matters, as a manner of course
correction.
24. Matter stands disposed of in terms of the order above.
25. No order as to costs.
Judge
Meghalaya
20.05.2024
"D.Thabah-PS"
