The Meghalaya High Court today said it is for the State government to decide if it wanted development for the State.
The observation by the division bench of the High Court came on a PIL regarding the Umroi airport and the move by the State government to find a new site to construct a new airport since the existing one could not accommodate bigger aircraft.
“At the end of the day it is for the State government to take a call. If the administration does not want development or is not proactive in such regard which may create job opportunities for the residents in the State upon ensuring that the ecological balance and the environment are not disturbed to any great extent, the court cannot have an agenda of its own to force development down the administration’s throat,” the High Court said.
“It is hoped that the State will find appropriate measures to identify and obtain the land needed for a proper airport, if the State desires that such a project be undertaken. Or, at any rate, the futile exercise of inviting offers may be stopped and no further expenses incurred in such regard. Let the matter appear a fortnight hence for the State to indicate its considered opinion whether it needs or wishes to have a bigger airport or the economic development that is lacking here,” the court added.
The High Court also added Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) as a respondent in the case since the Airport Authority of India (AAI) stated that bidders for the proposed airport project have to obtain trading license from KHADC to be eligible even to bid.
The AAI said that the exercise of inviting offers for land for the new airport may not yield any fruitful result since the State government has to identify suitable areas in consultation with the AAI before negotiating with the owners of the land and take steps for outright purchase or for acquisition in accordance with law.
Earlier, the State government informed the High Court that despite an Expression of Interest from the general public being sought and the time for receiving responses thereto being extended, only a few responses have been received by or about July 6, 2022 which the State government is yet to process.
The State government also sought time to report on the matter. The court has list the matter for hearing on August 1.
