KMENLANG SUIAM Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 23. 10. 2006 passed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in FAO No. 23 (T) 2006 whereby the appeal against the order dated 27. 9. 2006 passed by the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong was disposed of and allowed without formally fixing the date of hearing of the appeal which, according to the petitioner, deprived her of a full-fledged hearing on the merit of the appeal.

(2.) THE undisputed facts may be recorded straightway. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the Mining and Geology Department, Govt. of Meghalaya for utilization of her weighbridge installed at Thangskai, Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya for weighing of minerals laden vehicles plying on National Highway 44 i. e. Jowai-Umkiang-Badarpur Road. The agreement was extended for a period of three years by the respondent No. 1 with effect from 2. 7. 2004 to 2. 7. 2007. While the petitioner was carrying out her part of the agreement, the respondent No. 1 issued a Public Notice dated 28. 2. 2006 allowing the respondent No. 4 i. e. M/s Umkiang Weighbridge located within 15 KMs of the petitioner's weighbridge on the Jowai-Badarpur Road to undertake similar operation. As the petitioner found her business affected by the said notice, she instituted Title Suit No. 10 (T) 2006 before the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong against all the respondents for specific performance of the agreement by the respondent No. 1 and for declaration that she had the exclusive right to undertake such activity on National Highway 44 to the exclusion of the respondent No. 4. The petitioner also sought for consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from allowing the respondent No. 4 to operate the said weighbridge. The petitioner also filed a miscellaneous application for temporary injunction against the said notice dated 28. 2. 2006, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 27 (T)2006. The learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong by his order dated 12. 4. 2006 after hearing the respondents No. 1 to 3, suspended the said notice dated 28. 2. 2006 and further restrained the respondent No. 4 from operating the weighbridge. In terms of this temporary injunction, the respondent No. 1 by a Notification dated 18. 4. 2006 suspended the Public Notice dated 28. 2. 2006 and made it clear that the respondent No. 4 should not carry out the weighment of mineral laden trucks.

(3.) APPARENTLY aggrieved by the said order of injunction, the respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong which was registered as FAO No. 7 (T) 2006. The learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong by the judgment and order dated 15. 5. 2006 set aside the temporary injunction passed by the trial Court and remanded the same for fresh consideration and at the same time ordered that statusquo with regard to operation of the weighbridge as on the day of judgment be maintained. The respondent No. 1 taking cue from the statusquo order issued a fresh notification allowing the respondent No. 4 to continue the weighment of mineral laden trucks. When this was brought to the notice of the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, the notification was again suspended. Thereupon, all the respondents moved the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner by filing their respective show causes against the temporary jinjunction, which was posted for final disposal. However, the respondent No. 4 also preferred a review petition before the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner challenging the judgment dated 15. 5. 2006 and the same was dismissed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 26. 7. 2006. The learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner thereafter heard the parties and by his order dated 27. 09. 2006 passed a termporary injunction suspending the public notice dated 28. 2. 2006 as well as restraining the respondent No. 4 from operating the weighment of minerals laden trucks till the final disposal of the title suit. Anticipating an appeal by the respondents, the petitioner promptly lodged to caveat before the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner. The respondent No. 4 as expected preferred an appeal from the order of the trial Court granting injunction, which was registered as FAO No. 23 (T) 2006. The appeal came up before the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner on 9. 10. 2006, which was re-fixed on 11. 10. 2006 for admission and further orders on the prayer of the respondent No. 4. On 11. 10. 2006, the counsel for the petitioner opposed the prayer for staying the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court on 27. 9. 2006. The learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner admitted the appeal on 11. 10. 2006 and by the impugned order dated 23. 10. 2006 allowed the appeal on merit and disposed of the same. Resultantly, the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court on 27. 9. 2006 came to be set aside. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order primarily on the ground that the appellate Court could not have disposed of the appeal when the matter was yet to be posted for hearing. This is the subject matter of the appeal herein.