Customary practices of toll collection were saved by the Constitution, but the District Council was not authorized to set up a parallel check post and charge fees for checking vehicles carrying minerals.

JUDGMENT:

1. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the judgment rendered by this Court in WP(C) No. 18 of 2016 dated 03.05.2016 as referred to in the order impugned is distinguishable because the position of the petitioner is different to that of an agent. Supporting his submission placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Gauhati High Court as then it was also the High Court for Meghalaya reported in (2010) 4 GLT 172 titled "Meghalaya Commercial Truck Owner & Operators Association & Anr. v. State of Meghalaya & Ors." wherein, the Division Bench has held, that the customary practice of collection of tolls by the Syiems and their Durbars had at the point of commencement of the constitution of India acquired a force of law and was saved by Article 372 thereof so much so that exactions continued to be valid in terms of Article 227 (par 27 of the judgment).

2. In the judgment rendered in WP(C) No. 18 of 2016 after threadbare discussion it has been opined as under, viewed from any angle, it is apparent that any attempt on the part of the KHADC to recover fees from the vehicles carrying minerals and to subject them to any checking or verification is neither authorised by law nor is in conformity with the rights of citizen guaranteed by the Constitution of India". It has been further held as under, it is clear that the District Council has only the right of share of royalties, in terms of its agreement, occurring from the licenses or leases granted by the State Government in respect of the area of its jurisdiction. It has also been held ......................... However, within the campus of the limited right of share of royalties and raising of dispute if arising, the District Council has not been acceded a right in any of the provisions to set up a parallel check post and then, to charge fees in the name of the checking of vehicles. Hence, the appointment of the petitioner under the Order issued by the KHADC could only be disapproved. Finally, it has been concluded as under, the question in the present case is as to whether the KHADC could appoint an Agent to set up a parallel check post over the minerals carrying vehicles, the answer is negative. The said judgment has been upheld by the Division Bench while dismissing WA No. 52 of 2016 on 12.10.2017 thereafter, the SLP filed before the Honble Apex Court has been withdrawn

3. It appears that there is a conflict of law as laid down in the referred two judgments, one by Gauhati High Court and another by this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be given some time to enable him to make out a case by showing that the judgment of this Court on facts and customary practices is distinguishable. In the interest of justice, adjourned at his request.

5. List again after two weeks.