DEIPORMI DKHAR Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dtd. 13/2/2024, 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 dtd. 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 dtd. 9/5/2022 directed the State respondents to consider the renewal application, pursuant to which, the State respondents, by an order dtd. 30/5/2022 renewed the agreement and a fresh agreement was executed as early as on 1/6/2022 for a period of three years. All of a sudden, the renewal period was shortened / curtailed by an order dtd. 14/7/2023, issued by the Respondent No.3, whereby the period of renewal was reduced till 20/6/2023. 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 dtd. 27/4/2022 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 Weigh bridge Rules, 2009 and point 2 to Clause (iii) of the Meghalaya State Policy for Weigh bridges, 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 dtd. 30/5/2022, directing the writ petitioner/appellant to pay the renewal fee of Rs.250.00 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 dtd. 14/7/2023 and thereafter, informing the writ petitioner/appellant that the extension of agreement for operation of the weighbridge at Amsarin only up to 30/9/2023, is erroneous. He further submitted that even otherwise the order dtd. 30/9/2023 curtailing the period only upto 30/9/2023 was withdrawn by a letter dtd. 14/7/2023, which means that the earlier order granting extension for a period of three years would come into operation.