Back
2024 Supreme(Megh) 20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
S. Vaidyanathan, C.J., W. Diengdoh, J.
Deipormi Dkhar - Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya & Ors. - Respondents
WA No.4/2024 with MC (WA) No.3/2024
Decided On : 19-02-2024
Mr. S. Sen, Advocate with Mr. R. Majaw, Advocate, Ms. S. Shallam, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. A. Kumar, Advocate General with Mr. N. Syngkon, GA, for the Respondents
A licensee cannot claim automatic renewal of a license without obtaining necessary permissions as required by applicable regulations.
Headnote:
License - Weighbridge Operation - Meghalaya Installation, Regulation, Maintenance and Operation of Weighbridge Rules, 2009 - The court discussed the provisions regarding license renewal and the necessity of obtaining permissions, ultimately deciding that the interim relief sought by the appellant was not warranted.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant entered a license agreement for a weighbridge, which was renewed but later curtailed by the State. The appellant sought interim relief to operate the weighbridge pending a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's claims regarding the extension of the license were not substantiated by the necessary permissions as per the applicable rules, and thus the interim relief was not granted.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to interim relief to operate the weighbridge despite the curtailment of the license period by the State.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant could not demand an automatic extension of the license without the requisite permissions as stipulated in the governing rules.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to present their arguments before the learned Single Judge.
JUDGMENT
S. Vaidyanathan, C.J. - The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.02.2024, 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 dated 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 dated 09.05.2022 directed the State respondents to consider the renewal application, pursuant to which, the State respondents, by an order dated 30.05.2022 renewed the agreement and a fresh agreement was executed as early as on 01.06.2022 for a period of three years. All of a sudden, the renewal period was shortened / curtailed by an order dated 14.07.2023, issued by the Respondent No.3, whereby the period of renewal was reduced till 20.06.2023. 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 dated 27.04.2022 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 Weighbridge Rules, 2009 and point 2 to Clause (iii) of the Meghalaya State Policy for Weighbridges, 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 dated 30.05.2022, directing the writ petitioner/appellant to pay the renewal fee of Rs. 250/- 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 dated 14.07.2023 and thereafter, informing the writ petitioner/appellant that the extension of agreement for operation of the weighbridge at Amsarin only up to 30.09.2023, is erroneous. He further submitted that even otherwise the order dated 30.09.2023 curtailing the period only upto 30.09.2023 was withdrawn by a letter dated 14.07.2023, which means that the earlier order granting extension for a period of three years would come into operation.
4. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, the writ petitioner has no objection in putting forth his submissions in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge and in view of non-extension of status quo order as well as non-deployment of persons in weighbridge has been causing inconvenience and great prejudice. Since the appellant/writ petitioner has every chance to succeed the writ petition, the non grant of interim order would be prejudicial to the appellant. Hence, learned counsel prayed that as an interim measure, the appellant/writ petitioner may be permitted to operate the weighbridge in terms of the agreement till the writ petition is heard and disposed of finally.
5. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State respondents contended that in terms of Rules 3, 4, 6
