Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, C.J - Impugned letters, notices and orders dated 12.02.2016, 03.03.2016, 13.04.2016, 27.04.2016, 29.04.2016, 07.06.2016, 09.06.2016 and 16.08.2016 are alleged to have been passed in violation to the terms of the agreement dated 20.07.2007, as such, to be declared as illegal, with a further prayer, to prohibit the respondents from interfering with the running and management of Umling weighbridge at Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya. The contents of the impugned letters, notices and orders are as under:

(i) Vide letter impugned dated 12.02.2016, the Commissioner of Transport, Meghalaya, Shillong (respondent No.2), asked amongst other lease holder/licensee, the petitioner to clear all pending dues to the Government for operation of weighbridge as per the agreement signed with the Government and to ensure payment by 29.02.2016;

(ii) Vide another letter impugned dated 03.03.2016, the respondent No.2, amongst others, has directed the petitioner to ensure payment of pending dues by or before 21.03.2016;

(iii) Vide notice impugned dated 13.04.2016, the respondent No.2 has directed the petitioner to pay the amount, in default, action will be taken;

(iv) Vide impugned order dated 27.04.2016, the respondent No.2 has directed the District Transport Officers of respective districts to immediately stop the operation of weighbridges by concerned lessees and to temporarily takeover the said weighbridges in consultation with the respective Deputy Commissioners/Superintendents of Police by or before 30.04.2016;

(v) Vide order impugned dated 29.04.2016 respondent No.2 asked the Under Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Transport Department to take immediate steps to convene an urgent meeting between the lessees and the Transport Department latest by 10.05.2016 for taking necessary decision regarding the assurances/undertakings and representations of the lessees; (vi) Vide order impugned dated 07.06.2016, for failure of concerned lessees to clear all pending government dues, the concerned District Transport Officers have been directed to immediately takeover the weighbridges which include the Umling weighbridge of the petitioner;

(vii) Vide order impugned dated 09.06.2016 addressed to the respondent No.2 by the District Transport Officer, Ri-Bhoi District, the entrance of the premises of Umling weighbridge had been blocked with the boulders for entry of heavy vehicles, the load cells from the platform, computer sets and other weighing devices have been removed, rooms were almost empty except for tables, benches and few equipments as mentioned in the inventory report. The weighbridge chamber was under lock and key. However, after negotiation the Manager of weighbridge agreed to open the door. On inspection, the team headed by him found that the weighbridge was no longer capable of use, the team decided to seize the weighbridge; and

(viii) Vide communication dated 16.08.2016 addressed to the Under Secretary by the Commissioner of Transport (respondent No.2), it has been mentioned that proposal to take over the weighbridge due to failure of payment by the licensees on enhanced fee, the Government had conveyed the approval to that effect. That being so the contract regarding Umling Weighbridge was terminated. It is also mentioned therein that weighment on NH-40 has been infrequent and has not been smooth after the termination of the contract. It is further mentioned that the respondent No.2 to visit Ri-Bhoi District and to resolve the matter in order to ensure all mechanism, arrangements for smooth flow of traffic as well as weighment and maintenance of due record in the matter. Further, proposal for requisition charges, if any, may also be worked out with Deputy Commissioner, Ri-Bhoi District and submitted to the Government for approval.

2. To notice precisely the factual matrix, shall be advantageous for appreciating the matter in its right perspective.

3. Transport Department of the Government of Meghalaya was operating a weighbridge at Mawiong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. For efficient management of the weighbridge, a notice dated 21.09.2004 bearing No.Com/Trans/84/71/206 was issued by the respondent No.2 for general information to the effect that any person desirous of operating the said weighbridge may apply to the Commissioner of Transport, Meghalaya. It is in response to the said notice, weighbridge was shifted to the land owned by Shri Lamboklang Mylliemngap (uncle of the petitioner) situated at Umling, Ri-Bhoi District for the purpose of weighment of goods laden vehicles plying through NH-40 on Shillong-Guwahati. Certificates were to be issued for the purpose of checking and controlling overloading of vehicles and realizing Government royalty and taxes.

4. It is an admitted fact that on 20.07.2007 an agreement was entered into between the Government and Shri Lamboklang Mylliemngap wherein, it has been mentioned that the Government had decided to shift its defunct weighbridge at Mawiong, East Khasi Hills District and to replace it by setting up a new weighbridge at Umling, Ri-Bhoi District being more suitable location on NH-40 and being nearer to the entry-exit point of the State. It is also mentioned that in pursuance to the public notice dated 21.09.2004 interested parties were asked to submit their applications. The application of Shri Lamboklang Mylliemngap was accepted so was granted the permission to construct and setup the weighbridge at Umling, Ri-Bhoi District at his own cost. On completion of construction and installation the weighbridge was used for the purpose of weighing of, "goods transported", for controlling of overloading and for collection of tax, royalty etc. on payment, of an agreed lump sum amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees seventy five lakhs) per annum, to the Government by the licensee.

5. The said owner of the land (licensee) installed the weighing machine/device in his private land at Umling, Ri-Bhoi District at his own cost to the tune of Rs. 1 crore i.e. Rs. 30 lakhs for three weighing devices, Rs. 30 lakhs for labour charges, cutting and levelling of the hilllock, Rs. 10 lakhs for construction of RCC building consisting of four rooms for the weighment staff and office, Rs. 30 lakhs for the construction of another RCC building consisting of six rooms for accommodating the staff from Sales Tax Department and Directorate of Mine and Mineral Department, Government of Meghalaya. It is only thereafter, licensee continued to run the weighbridge so was collecting a sum of Rs. 30/-per loaded vehicles plying in NH-40 Shillong-Guwahati route as weighment fees.

6. On the expiry of stipulated period of three years, lease agreement was not renewed, but on the basis of mutual understanding license fees/weighment fees/annual premium beyond three years was accepted by the respondent-authorities from time to time, therefore, renewal of licensee was implied.

7. All North East Commercial Trucks Owners Association had preferred a Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment and order dated 07.06.2011 passed in WP (C) No.6845 of 2010 and WP (C) No.206 of 2011 of the High Court of Guwahati, in said Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) ......./2012 CC 9965-9966/2012 on 22.05.2012, following direction has been issued:-

"In the meanwhile, State Government will continue to issue weighment certificates as per the existing rules, to all those trucks and trailers which may be passing through the weighbridges".

8. In compliance of the aforesaid order, Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Transport Department, Shillong has issued order dated 21.06.2012 under No.TPT.82/2012/230 mentioning therein that the three weighbridges which include Umling weighbridge (of the petitioner) will continue to issue weighment certificates to all trucks and trailers which pass through the weighbridges as per the existing rules until further orders.

9. On 18.07.2012 Shri Lamboklang Mylliemngap licensee of Umling weighbridge requested respondent No.2 that he intends to handover the operation of weighbridge to Shri Gavin M. Mylliem (petitioner) w.e.f. 17.07.2012. The said request has been accepted by the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Transport Department, it has been conveyed to the respondent No.2 that the Government has accepted the application of Shri Lamboklang Mylliemngap, therefore, the ownership of Umling weighbridge be transferred from Shri Lamboklang Mylliemngap to Shri Gavin M. Mylliem and license for operation of the weighbridge be changed in the name of Shri Gavin M. Mylliem. The records relating to the said weighbridge be corrected accordingly. The respondent No.2 vide letter dated 21.01.2013 conveyed to the petitioner as well as to Shri Lamboklang Mylliemngap regarding acceptance of the transfer of ownership and change of licensee of Umling weighbridge to Shri Gavin M. Mylliem (petitioner) and advised him to deposit the fixed lease amount from February 2013 and all communications to be in the name of transferee as the sole owner, operator and licensee of Umling weighbridge.

10. From the above, it is clear that though on expiry of the stipulated period of three years, the license/agreement was not renewed but by the conduct as aforesaid, in effect, was impliedly renewed.

11. The petitioner continued to pay annual license fees as per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 20.07.2007 i.e. license fees/weighment fees/annual premium of Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees seventy five lakhs) was paid by the petitioner and accepted by the respondents. Therefore, indisputably lease agreement was impliedly renewed. According to the petitioner, he has paid the requisite fee/annual premium fee up to 2016 but despite that he had been put on notice to clear the pending dues. For default of dues, the weighbridge of the petitioner has been taken over by the respondents.

12. The question arises as to what were the unpaid dues.

13. Fee for weighment of different categories of motor vehicles was charged @Rs.20/- for light motor vehicles with load Rs. 30/- for medium goods vehicles and Rs. 50/- for heavy good vehicles as per Rule 10 of "the Meghalaya Installation, Regulation, Maintenance and Operation of Weighbridge Rules, 2009. Rule 10 was amended in the year 2015. Fee of Rs. 20, 30 and 50 was respectively enhanced to Rs. 100, 150 and 200. So at the said rate, fees were to be collected and deposited, therefore, it is the enhanced fee which was due to be collected and then paid by various weighbridges owners including the petitioner. Same position is made clear by the respondents in their affidavit-inopposition, in para 16, it has been averred that Shri Gavin M. Mylliem (petitioner) has no pending dues to be paid to the Government as per the agreement dated 20.07.2007 but his pending dues to be paid to the Government are the dues as per revised weighment fee. The Government has approved revising of weighment fee from initial Rs. 50/- per truck to Rs. 200/- but without reviewing/revising the annual fee which was reflected in the audit observation raised by the Accountant General (Audit), Shillong dated 11.06.2015.

14. The contention of the petitioner is that he was never asked to pay the enhanced amount of fee. Same position was taken note of in the order of this Court dated 02.07.2018, wherein, it was recorded that after adjusting an amount of Rs. 7,18,75,000/- (Rupees seven crores eighteen lakhs seventy five thousand) received from the petitioner from 20.07.2007 to 06.06.2016, another sum of Rs. 7,74,35,636/- (Rupees seven crores seventy four lakhs thirty five thousand six hundred thirty six) was found due against the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the respondents should not have taken over the weighbridge that apart to give quietus to the litigation, his counsel suggested that the petitioner is ready to pay in one go Rs. 2,45,27,000/- (Rupees two crores forty five lakhs twenty seven thousand) subject to a condition that on deposit, license of the petitioner is renewed and weighbridge handed over to him. On doing so, the petitioner will issue post dated cheques for the balance amount on monthly basis. Learned counsel for the respondents sought time for having instructions.

15. On 17.09.2018, learned GA has produced the communication dated 09.08.2018 wherein, it has been mentioned that to bring about transparency in leasing out weighbridges to private parties, open tender process will be initiated. In support whereof, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2 stating therein that the Government is of the opinion that the matter cannot be settled, as the petitioner was a long term defaulter, the Government desired that the petitioner should make a one-time payment of the arrear dues payable by the petitioner to the Government, however, still same would not entitle the petitioner to resume the weighbridge at Umling as was dismantled and rendered unusable by him. Further, it has been stated that the petitioner himself discontinued the weighbridge at Umling as a result, there was no weighbridge in place for the out bound traffic at Ri-Bhoi District for several months. The Government was compelled to come up with an alternative arrangement and thereafter had setup a weighbridge at Shangbangla as a temporary arrangement. The situation demanded a proper weighbridge with all modern amenities to be setup for which proper tender process has to be initiated.

16. Learned GA further added that the agreement regarding weighbridge at Umling had out lived. No doubt vide order passed by the Honble Supreme Court dated 06.11.2015 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).17901-17902/2012, the existing weighbridges operated by the private parties have to be continued till a decision is taken by the Government for establishing integrated check posts but same does not confer any right to the petitioner to continue without clearing his dues and in absence of renewal agreement. Furthermore, regarding weighbridges in the State of Meghalaya, the Government is likely to formulate a policy.

17. The attempt for settlement failed, the case was finally heard on 26.10.2018. While concluding the arguments finally, learned counsel for the petitioner again suggested that for giving quietus to the litigation the petitioner will pay Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees five crores) out of Rs. 7,74,35,636/- (Rupees seven crores seventy four lakhs thirty five thousand six hundred thirty six) in one go and balance amount will be paid monthly on equal installment by post dated cheques. Learned GA sought time to have instructions he was given liberty to have instructions. The matter was posted for 14.11.2018 but learned GA could not come up with any positive response.

18. The questions for determination are:

(i) Whether the agreement of the year 2007 on the expiry of stipulated period of three years impliedly got extended in view of the conduct of the respondents by accepting the license fee and annual premium from time to time;

(ii) Whether the disputed questions of fact emerge from the respective pleadings of the parties.

19. The installation of weighbridge was earlier governed by Office Memorandum No.TPT.40/97/Pt/4 dated 11.09.2003 which ceased to operate w.e.f 09.12.2009 in terms of Rule 15 of "the Meghalaya Installation, Regulation, Maintenance and Operation of Weighbridge Rules, 2009" (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2009"). However, the existing weighbridges were protected in terms of Rule 14 of the Rules of 2009, same is quoted hereunder:-

"14. Existing Weighbridges to comply with provision of these Rules.-Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, the existing weighbridges shall comply with the provisions of these rules stipulated herein within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of commencement of these rules failing which the Government shall have the power either to cancel or decide otherwise."

20. Rule 10 of the Rules of 2009 has been amended in the year 2015 enhancing the fee from Rs. 20, 30, 50 to Rs. 100, 150, 200 respectively for good laden vehicles.

21. An agreement executed by Shri Lamboklang Mylliemngap on 15.03.2005 was valid up to 14.03.2006. On expiry, a fresh agreement was executed on 20.07.2007, in terms whereof, license was for a period of three years commencing from 15.03.2007 further, renewable from time to time for a period of three years at a time on an application to be made by the licensee and on fulfilling the terms and conditions contained in the agreement. The licensee has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees seventy five lakhs) per annum. However, he was given liberty to pay either in one installment or in 12 (twelve) monthly installments of Rs. 6,25,000/- (Rupees six lakhs twenty five thousand) per month. Weighment fee was to be charged by the licensee from the loaded vehicle. The rate of weighment fee was subject to revise by the State Government from time to time. As per Clause 10 of the agreement for renewal of license, application was to be made at least one month before expiry of license and failure would attract termination of the contract.

22. Para 18 of the agreement provides that during subsistence of the agreement in case of any legal development or change in Government policy or implementing new rules and regulations, care should be taken to see that the right and interest of the licensee is not affected by such developments or changes.

23. The question is as to whether Clause 10 of the agreement is rigid or flexible. In the given facts and circumstances, it is flexible because licensee was to make an application at least one month before expiry of license, in default, termination of the contract would be there but in the present case, the stipulated period expired in the year 2010, but Shri Lamboklang Mylliemngap continued to operate the weighbridge, same was not objected to by the respondents. In addition thereto, at his request, the Government had allowed the transfer of ownership of the weighbridge in favour of Shri Gavin M. Mylliem (petitioner) as is quite clear from the letter dated 16.01.2013 addressed to the Commissioner of Transport by the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Transport Department wherein, it is also mentioned that the license for operation of weighbridge be changed in the name of Shri Gavin M. Mylliem (petitioner), records relating to the weighbridge be corrected and updated accordingly. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.01.2013 issued by the Commissioner of Transport, the petitioner had been asked to deposit the fixed lease amount from February 2013 and all communications will be in the name of transferee (petitioner). In addition thereto, the petitioner had deposited the annual fee at Rs. 75,00,00,000/- (Rupees seventy five lakhs) up to the year 2016 which had been accepted by the respondents. It is thereafter the dispute arose regarding nonpayment of dues at the enhanced rate of Rs. 200/- per truck and as a result thereof, weighbridge was taken over by the Transport department.

24. License as well as agreement in the stated set of facts, in effect, has been impliedly renewed from time to time, in this behalf learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Honble Apex Court in the case of "M.P. Oil Extraction & anr v. State of M.P. & ors: (1997) 7 SCC 592 [LQ/SC/1997/933] . Para 44 of the judgment is advantageous to be quoted:-

"44. The renewal clause in the impugned agreements executed in favour of the respondents does not also appear to be unjust or improper. Whether protection by way of supply of sal seeds under the terms of agreement requires to be continued for a further period, is a matter for decision by the State Government and unless such decision is patently arbitrary, interference by the Court is not called for. In the facts of the case, the decision of the State Government to extend the protection for further period cannot be held to be per se irrational, arbitrary or capricious warranting judicial review of such policy decision. Therefore, the High Court has rightly rejected the appellants contention about the invalidity of the renewal clause. The appellants failed in earlier attempts to challenge the validity of the agreement including the renewal clause. The subsequent challenge of the renewal clause, therefore, should not be entertained unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the fact situation has undergone such changes that the discretion in the matter of renewal of agreement should not be exercised by the State. It has been rightly contended by Dr. Singhvi that the respondents legitimately expect that the renewal clause should be given effect to in usual manner and according to past practice unless there is any special reason not to adhere to such practice. The doctrine of "legitimate expectation" has been judicially recognised by this Court in a number of decisions. The doctrine of "legitimate expectation" operates in the domain of public law and in appropriate case, constitutes a substantive and enforceable right." (emphasis added)

25. Learned counsel also rightly placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Honble Apex Court in the case of "State of U.P. & ors v. Lalji Tandon (dead) through LRs: (2004) 1 SCC 1 [LQ/SC/2003/1096 ;] . Paras 13 and 15 of the judgment is also advantageous to be quoted:-

"13. In India, a lease may be in perpetuity. Neither the Transfer of Property Act nor the general law abhors a lease in perpetuity. (Mulla on The Transfer of Property Act, 9th Edn., 1999, p.1011). Where a covenant for renewal exists, its exercise is, of course, a unilateral act of the lessee, and the consent of the lessor is unnecessary. (Baker v. Merckel, (1960) 1 All ER 668: (1960) 1 QB 657: (1960) 2 WLR 492 (CA), also Mulla, ibid., p.1204). Where the principal lease executed between the parties containing a covenant for renewal, is renewed in accordance with the said covenant, whether the renewed lease shall also contain similar clause for renewal depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, regard being had to the intention of the parties as displayed in the original covenant for renewal and the surrounding circumstances. There is a difference between an extension of lease in accordance with the covenant in that regard contained in the principal lease and renewal of lease, again in accordance with the covenant for renewal contained in the original lease. In the case of extension it is not necessary to have a fresh deed of lease executed, as the extension of lease for the term agreed upon shall be a necessary consequence of the clause for extension. However, option for renewal consistently with the covenant for renewal has to be exercised consistently with the terms thereof and, if exercised, a fresh deed of lease shall have to be executed between the parties. Failing the execution of a fresh deed of lease, another lease for a fixed term shall not come into existence though the principal lease in spite of the expiry of the term thereof may continue by holding over for year by year or month by month, as the case may be.

15. A Division Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Syed Jaleel Zane v. P. Venkata Murlidhar, AIR 1981 AP 328 [LQ/TelHC/1980/55] , wherein Jeevan Reddy, J., as His Lordship then was, spoke for the Division Bench makes almost an exhaustive discussion of the relevant English and Indian Law available on the point and we express our respectful agreement with the exposition of law as made therein. We note with approval the following proposition of law laid down therein: (AIR pp.332 & 334, paras 14 & 19)

(i) In India, the law does not prohibit a perpetual lease; clear and unambiguous language would be required to infer such a lease. If the language is ambiguous the Court would opt for an interpretation negating the plea of the perpetual lease;

(ii) To find an answer to the question whether a covenant for renewal contained in the lease deed construed properly and in its real context, entitles the tenant to continue as long as he chooses by exercising the option of renewal at the end of each successive period of 5 years subject to the same terms and conditions depends on the deed of lease being read as a whole and an effort made to ascertain the intention of the parties while entering into the contract. No single clause or term should be read in isolation so as to defeat other clauses. The interpretation must be reasonable, harmonious and be deduced from the language of the document;

(iii) The Court always leans against a perpetual renewal and hence where there is a clause for renewal subject to the same terms and conditions, it would be construed as giving a right to renewal for the same period as the period of the original lease, but not a right to second or third renewal and so on unless, of course, the language is clear and unambiguous." (emphasis added)

26. Applying the law as laid down by the Honble Apex Court, it is to be construed that in the given facts and circumstances, renewal of lease is implied.

27. The claim of the petitioner that he is not a defaulter has substance in fact, when weighing fee was increased, he was not informed to pay the amount of enhanced fee. That apart, the respondents could not take over the weighbridge. The claim of the respondents that the weighbridge was rendered defunct by the petitioner himself as he had removed all the devices, so is not useable, as such, was seized and temporary arrangement was made for collecting revenue at another place, is inconsistent with the admitted position as referred to above.

28. The petitioner had filed a suit for injunction before the Court of Assistant to District Judge in the year 2016 but temporary injunction was not granted. Then, the learned Trial Court noticed that there is no urgency involved, petitioner is required to comply with the requirement of section 80 CPC, the plaint was accordingly returned. It is only thereafter the petitioner filed the instant petition.

29. Now, again a question whether disputed question of facts arise for determination.

(i) According to the petitioner, the respondents in quick succession, after passing various orders in the year 2016 have taken over the weighbridge;

(ii) Whereas, according to the District Transport Officer, who on taking overcharge of Umling weighbridge has submitted a detailed report on 09.06.2016 to the Commissioner of Transport, Meghalaya stating therein that when he along with his team of officers arrived at Umling weighbridge they found the entrance of the premises blocked by boulders for entry of heavy vehicles. When they entered inside the premises they found that load cells from the platform had been removed, computer sets/devices had been removed, rooms were almost empty except tables and benches and few equipments were there and thereafter, inventory was prepared. The weighbridge chamber was under lock and key. After negotiation with the Manager, the door was opened, the team inspected and found that the weighbridge was no longer capable of use, the team decided to seize the weighbridge. It is in the same background, it has been stated that alternative arrangement has been made.

30. Once the position is clear that Umling weighbridge was established by Shri Lamboklang Mylliemngap by investing huge amounts of his own. Later on, petitioner stepped into the shoes of Shri Lamboklang Mylliemngap, because ownership of the weighbridge was transferred to him which was also permitted by the Government in the year 2013. He too had paid huge amount to the ex-owner. The petitioner had not denied to pay whatever due to the Government but despite that possession had been taken over. The intentions of the petitioner are quite clear when the matter was taken up for hearing on 02.07.2018, he offered to pay Rs. 2,45,27,000/- (Rupees two crores forty five lakhs twenty seven thousand) out of the payable amount of Rs. 7,74,35,636/- (Rupees seven crores seventy four lakhs thirty five thousand six hundred thirty six) with a further condition that the balance amount will be paid by him by issuing post dated cheques, same was not accepted by the respondents. Again while hearing the matter finally, he offered to pay Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees five crores) in one go and balance amount of Rs. 7,74,35,636/- (Rupees seven crores seventy four lakhs thirty five thousand six hundred thirty six) by post dated cheques. Again, learned counsel for the respondents was given chance to have instructions but without any positive response which clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was not averse to pay Rs. 7,74,35,636/- (Rupees seven crores seventy four lakhs thirty five thousand six hundred thirty six) on the basis of enhanced fee in view of Rule 10 as amended in the year 2015.

31. The respondents should not have taken over possession of the weighbridge because the Honble Apex Court vide order dated 06.11.2015, while disposing of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).17901-17902/2012 titled "All North East Commerl. Trucks Owners Asn. v. State of Meghalaya & ors", directed as under:-

"However, we direct that till the requisite number of integrated check-posts are set up as per the existing policy of the State, the existing weighbridges, whether private or Government, shall not be discontinued.

The Chief Secretary of the State shall decide as to how many integrated check-posts are required and his decision with regard to number of check-posts required by the State shall be final"

(emphasis added)

32. In the additional affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 on 25.10.2018, it has been stated that the petitioner was a long term defaulter. He himself discontinued the weighbridge at Umling and rendered it useable as a result, there was no weighbridge in existence for the out bound traffic at Ri-Bhoi District, alternative arrangement was made by setting up weighbridge at Shangbangla. It is also mentioned that there were complaints regarding overcharging but the allegation of overcharging appear to be without any cogent basis. It has been further stated that the order of the Honble Apex Court does not confer any right on the existing weighbridge operators to continue for indefinite period inspite of non-payment of dues. The affidavit so filed appears to give a cover up theory so as to negate the rights of the petitioner which are protected in terms of the order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the Honble Apex Court in the aforesaid SLP.

33. It appears that the respondents hoodwinked the issue by projecting that the petitioner is a defaulter but the petitioner cannot be said to be a defaulter because he was and is ready to pay whatever due but the adamant attitude of the respondents has negating the rights of the petitioner. In terms of the order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the Honble Apex Court as quoted above, the State was to establish integrated checkposts, till then, the existing weighbridges, whether private or Government, were not to be discontinued.

34. In the affidavit dated 25.10.2018, the respondent No.2 has stated that the State of Meghalaya is likely to take a decision for which time is required. That being so, when they will take such a decision for setting up of integrated check-posts, and same is given practical effect till then, the existing weighbridges have to be continued. Therefore, no reason to deny the right to the petitioner in view of the order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the Honble Supreme Court as quoted above.

35. The petitioner subject to payment of amount as is claimed to be payable to the Government i.e. Rs. 7,74,35,636/- (Rupees seven crores seventy four lakhs thirty five thousand six hundred thirty six) shall be entitled to operate the weighbridge at Umling. Since the weighbridge had been taken over by the Government in the year 2016, therefore, as has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner in order to give quietus to the litigation is ready to pay/deposit an amount of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees five crores) in one go and to issue post dated cheques of the balance amount of Rs. 7,74,35,636/- (Rupees seven crores seventy four lakhs thirty five thousand six hundred thirty six) provided weighbridge and license is restored to him.

36. We direct as under:-

(i) Subject to deposit of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees five crores), the license of the petitioner shall be restored/renewed subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement;

(ii) The position of the petitioner as it existed at the time of taking over of the weighbridge at Umling by the respondents shall be restored to the petitioner and shall be permitted to operate the weighbridge;

(iii) He shall pay the annual fee etc. in terms of the agreement in tune with enhanced rate/fee of weighment as revised from time to time and;

(iv) It is made clear that restoration/renewal as aforesaid shall be permitted and effective only till the Government sets up integrated check-posts consistent with the order of the Honble Apex Court dated 06.11.2015 passed in SLP No(s).17901-17902/2012 as referred to above.

37. Petition succeeds shall stand disposed of as above.

38. It may not be out of place to note that on 17.11.2018 (Saturday), learned GA has supplied to the office a copy of the notification No.TPT.125/2018/8 dated 01.11.2018 where-under the Meghalaya State Policy for Weighbridges, 2018 has been notified, same is brought to our notice today. In our view para 36 (iv) of the judgment takes care of the same.