The Meghalaya High Court has directed the Chief Secretary of Meghalaya to fix responsibility and take appropriate action as a manner of course correction for the actions of the Transport Department officials especially the then Commissioner of Transport in connection with extension of lease of the weighbridge at Amsarin, West Jaintia Hills.
The High Court bench of Justice Hamarsan Singh Thangkhiew passed the order today while dismissing the writ petition filed by Deipormi Dkhar, a resident of Jowai.
Dkhar filed the writ petition before the High Court assailing the actions of the Transport Department in withdrawing the official staff from the weighbridge operated by him at Amsarin, West Jaintia Hills. Dkhar also sought the court’s directions to order the department to act in accordance with the renewal agreement for the weighbridge dated June 1, 2022, and with the order dated January 16, 2024 passed by the Commissioner of Transport.
“However, in view of the actions of the other State respondents, especially the then Commissioner of Transport, the respondent No. 1 (Chief Secretary) shall be at liberty to initiate a review to affix responsibility and take appropriate action, to ensure fairness and reasonableness of future actions in such matters, as a manner of course correction,” the High Court said.
According to the court, it was because of the Transport Department that Dkhar also became a direct beneficiary since the lease of the weighbridge that was to terminate in three years was still made valid for over six years.
The court said that this situation which has been primarily caused by the department “surely demands that the respondents embark upon a course correction, especially considering the overwhelming aspect that public interest and revenue that has been adversely affected.”
It also said that in the entire sequence of events, there has been clear violation of the Weighbridge Rules, especially in the manner of renewal, wherein the orders of the High Court have been misinterpreted by the then Commissioner of Transport, “which has raised grave doubts as to the motive behind the same, and whether the same was made to give undue benefit to the writ petitioner”.
“This action which the other State respondents have sought to wash their hands off, by attributing the same to be an act of an unauthorised officer, and as such, are not bound by the same, is also viewed with a certain degree of skepticism, inasmuch as, no action has been taken till date departmentally or otherwise against the said officer,” the court said.
“State action in their dealings in such cases, especially when it involves commercial interest, should not only be fair and above board, but the transparency and reasonableness of such dealings should be reflected in such actions. Unfortunately, as observed earlier, in the entire sequence of events, the conduct of the State functionaries, either by the then Commissioner of Transport and later by the orders of the Transport Department itself, speaks very poorly about the state of affairs, which necessarily demand a relook and a course correction to be undertaken in public interest and for the good of the State,” the High Court added.
