SANJAY R MARAK Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner questioned the validity of the impugned office order dated 16-2-99 and modification of it vide letters/orders dated 28/06/1999 and 10/03/2000 as seen in the documents marked as Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition thus, (sic) remanding the time of operation in respect of Weigh Bridge Wageasi for a period of 3 (three) years with effect from 1-4-2000 to 31-3-2003 with a condition and payment of 25% extension fee on the last year's bid value amounting to Rs. 5,00,000.00 (Rupees five lakhs) only to and in favour of private respondent No. 5 namely, Smt. Tillavinter Marak by contending inter alia, that the petitioner is a public spirited citizen of India and by profession he is a businessman dealing in various kinds of contract works and, as such, he is an interested party having a locus standi in the matter relating to the leasing and settlement of the weigh bridge of the respondents but, the respondent, the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council in short, District Council instead of making settlement of the said weigh bridge of the respondents, the Executive Committee of it by its decision made on 7-3-1997, settled and made lease of the said weigh bridge namely, Wageasi Weigh Bridge for a period of 3 (three) years on payment of Rs. 2,00,000.00 only with effect from 1-4-97 to 31-3-2000 in six equal instalments as sen in the document marked as Annexure-1 to the writ petition without following the procedural standard and also without following the prescribed provisions of the related regulations namely, the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (Market Tax) Regulation, 1970 (Regulation No. 1 of 1971) hereinafter referred to as Regulation and the settlement was made directly without reasons by the said respondent No. 2 (sic) to and in favour of the respondent No. 5.

(2.) According to Mr. V. K. Jindal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 is the wife of Hon'ble Minister of Forest etc. of the Government of Meghalaya and, as such, she has enough influence over the Administration of District Council and through influence, the weigh bridge was settled to the respondent No. 5. It is also submitted by Mr. Jindal, learned Senior Counsel that there has been differences amongst the District Council and the Deputy Commissioner concerned inasmuch as, the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills District under his office letter dated 1-12-1998 intimated the District Transport Officer, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar, that originally the weigh bridge at Wageasi belongs to the Transport Department of the Government of Meghalaya but, later on it has been under the possession of the District Council after the District Council had taken over the said bridge at Wageasi forcibly and, at the moment, the District Council is operating the said weigh bridge illegally. Mr. Jindal, learned Senior Counsel contended that the 5th respondent who defaulted in payment of instalments in terms of the documents marked as Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition, the District Council by virtue of its office letter/order dated 16-2-1999 extended the time of operation of the said weigh bridge for another period of 3 (three) years i.e., from 1-4-2000 to 31-3-2003 much before expiry of previous letter/settlement made with the respondent No. 5 that too, without calling any tender or issuing any public notice and the said office letter/order dtd. 16-2-1999 was further modified vide, subsequent letters/orders dated 28-6-1999 and 10-3-2000 without any justification. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to take up the work of weigh bridge at Wageasi even at the rate of 10% higher price for which it was settled with the private respondent No. 5 by the District Council and even, if it is not allowed then, such settlement should be done by public auction or by tender system on such terms and conditions as laid down in the related regulation and with other conditions made for the purpose by the District Council.

(3.) Mr. A. C. Borbora, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 submitted that since 8-5-2001, the District Council through its staff started collecting the weighing charges in respect of all weighment made in the said Weigh Bridge by issuing necessary receipts/vouchers thereby, keeping intact the revenue in the interest of the District Council for which the concerned Range Officer was directed to make necessary arrangement for collection of weighing charges through the forest staff of the District Council. According to Mr. Borbora, learned Counsel, for the purpose of temporary and ad-hoc allotment of lease there cannot be any pick and choose policy and, as such, the earlier related interim order dated 11-5-2001 is liable to be vacated and the District Council may be allowed to continue with the present interim arrangement made by it till determination of the writ petition by this Court. At this stage, Mr. Borbora, learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs including paragraphs 6 and 8 of the miscellaneous application filed by the District Council-respondents under Misc. Case No. 95 (SH) 2001, and also, submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders.