Back
2024 Supreme(Megh) 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
H.S. Thangkhiew, J.
Shri. Deipormi Dkhar - Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 8 of 2024
Decided On : 20-05-2024
Mr. S. Sen, Advocate with Mr. R. Majaw, Advocate and Mr. S.K. Roy, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. A. Kumar, AG with Mr. N. Syngkon, GA and Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA, for the Respondent.
A lease agreement for a weighbridge must comply with statutory requirements, including proper authorization, to be enforceable.
Headnote:
Weighbridge - Lease Agreement - Meghalaya Installation, Regulation, Maintenance Operation of Weighbridge Rules 2009 - The court interpreted the statutory requirements for weighbridge operation, emphasizing the necessity of proper authorization and compliance with renewal procedures, ultimately ruling the petitioner's claims as invalid due to lack of authority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the withdrawal of official staff from their weighbridge, arguing that the lease agreement was validly renewed and that the withdrawal was arbitrary and violated natural justice principles.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lease agreement was not validly executed due to lack of proper authorization and compliance with statutory rules, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner had no enforceable rights.
Issues: Whether the withdrawal of staff from the weighbridge was lawful and whether the lease agreement was validly renewed under the applicable rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of proper authorization and compliance with the Weighbridge Rules rendered the lease agreement invalid, thus negating the petitioner's claims.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
H.S. Thangkhiew, J. - The petitioner by way of this third writ petition is before this Court assailing the actions of the respondents in withdrawing the official staff from the weighbridge of the petitioner located at Amsarin, West Jaintia Hills, and for directions to order the respondents to act in accordance with the renewal agreement for the said weighbridge dated 01.06.2022, and also for compliance of the order dated 16.01.2024, passed by the respondent No. 3.
2. The background facts are that the petitioner was settled with a lease of a weighbridge at Amsarin, vide lease agreement dated 07.12.2017, for a period of 3(three) years in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 of the Meghalaya Installation, Regulation, Maintenance Operation of Weighbridge Rules 2009, and the said period was to expire on 06.12.2020. The said agreement by letter dated 10.12.2020, was renewed till the period ending 31.12.2020, on the same terms and conditions, and it is the case of the writ petitioner that they had diligently paid all the installments due as payable, and had also applied for renewal of the lease which however, apart from the letter dated 10.12.2020, no further response was received from the respondents. The writ petitioner on the lease not being formally renewed, then filed writ petition being WP(C) No. 2 of 2021, which was disposed of by judgment dated 09.05.2021, with a direction to the writ petitioner to approach the respondents for consideration for renewal. The lease agreement was then renewed for a period of 3(three) years w.e.f. 01.06.2022 to 31.05.2025. The respondents then vide letter dated 14.07.2023, communicated to the petitioner that the said lease would be extended only to 30.09.2023. The petitioner being aggrieved thereby, assailed the said letter by way of WP(C) No. 299 of 2023, and this Court then by order dated 28.09.2023, directed that status quo be maintained until the next date, which thereafter was continued by another order dated 08.12.2023.
3. The respondents then by letter dated 16.01.2024, withdrew the impugned letter dated 14.07.2023, but on 01.02.2024, all the official staff employed in the said weighbridge were relieved therefrom and posted in another weighbridge by the name of Amjeha weighbridge, which as per the writ petitioner, has dislocated the operation of his weighbridge, and in effect had rendered it inoperable, as the said staff were necessary for stamping the weighment slips, which were issued to the vehicles. As such, the instant writ petition seeking the reliefs as aforementioned, has been preferred by the writ petitioner.
4. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that with the withdrawal of the earlier impugned letter dated 14.07.2023, under challenge in WP(C) No. 299 of 2023, the lease agreement which was to be effective till 31.05.2025 stood restored, and as such without any speaking order, the withdrawal of the official staff posted in the weighbridge of the petitioner was uncalled for and unwarranted. It has also been argued that the settlement of weighbridges is governed by the Rules of 2009 and Rule 5 thereof, provides for certain conditions to be fulfilled before a weighbridge is installed, such as the same being placed before the respondent No. 2 (Commissioner Secretary, Transport) as per Rule 6 of the said Rules, who is then to sign the agreement with the successful bidder, as provided by the Meghalaya State Policy for Weighbridges, 2018, which supplement the Rules. The extended lease dated 14.07.2023, it is contended though a stance has been adopted by the State respondents that the signatory thereto was incompetent to execute the same, cannot render the renewed lease void, inasmuch as, the agreement is a statutory agreement and it cannot be said that there was no approval or sanction from the competent authority. The case of Timber Kashmir Private Ltd. vs. Conservator of Forest, Jammu reported in (1976) 4 SCC 497, has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitio
