KMENLANG SUIAM Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of both these writ petitions inasmuch as these two writ petitions are inextricably inter-linked, involve facts, which are co-related with each other, giving rise to common questions of law and, on the request made by the learned Counsel for the parties concerned, both these writ petitions have been heard together.

(2.) The Respondents have resisted the writ petition. With the help of an affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Transport Department, the Respondents have contended, inter alia, that the Petitioner's permission expired on 19.12.2010 and the renewal of permission is neither automatic nor as a matter of right. The Government's policy decision not to grant extension or renewal of permission after the expiry of the existing term has been taken in the larger interest of the public and the same does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of this Court's extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

(3.) With regard to the Petitioner's claim that some of the Weighbridges were allowed to function even after expiry of their respective terms of the lease, the Respondents have contended that those weighbridges are continuing on the strength of the various orders of the Court. The Respondents categorically state, in their affidavit-in-opposition, that the Government has not granted renewal in respect of any lease agreement inasmuch as the State Government has decided to set up joint/integrated check gates with weighbridge facility on National Highway Nos. 40, 44 and 62 in order to facilitate operation of government toll gates in one place instead of locating such gates at various places on the same route. It is also contended by the Respondents that the provisions, contained in 2009 Rules, form enabling provisions and the same do not disempowered the Government from refusing to grant extension of permission in public interest.