Advertisement
Advertisement

― Advertisement ―

HomeTenny Dard M. Marak vs The State Of Meghalaya & Ors on...

Tenny Dard M. Marak vs The State Of Meghalaya & Ors on 18 March, 2026

ADVERTISEMENT

Meghalaya High Court

Tenny Dard M. Marak vs The State Of Meghalaya & Ors on 18 March, 2026

Author: W. Diengdoh

Bench: W. Diengdoh

Serial No. 02
                     HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Daily List
                            AT SHILLONG


     PIL No. 1 of 2024
                                             Date of order: 18.03.2026
     Tenny Dard M. Marak      vs    The State of Meghalaya & ors
     Coram:
          Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
          Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
     Appearance:
     For the Petitioner    : Dr P. Agarwal, Adv.
     For the Respondents : Mr K. Khan, AAG with

Mr N. Syngkon, GA
Mr J.N. Rynjah, GA

Pursuant to the order dated 2nd March, 2026, the State has

SPONSORED

filed an affidavit of Shri A.M. Sangma, Commissioner of Transport

in the Transport Department, Government of Meghalaya.

2. Dr P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that

the approach of the Transport Department right from the

beginning has been extremely casual. She submits that despite

the order dated 15th December, 2025 passed by this Court, no

serious steps have been taken by the said Department with

respect to the non-functional weighbridges. She submits that the

direction vide order dated 15th December, 2025, was to complete

the whole process within eight weeks, which has not been

Page 1 of 9
complied with. She further submits that right from the beginning,

the approach of the Transport Department has been

lackadaisical, inasmuch as, there has been suppression of

information with respect to the weighbridges and now, non-

compliance of the direction of this Court. She further submits

that even the CAG report records reluctance on the part of the

Transport Department to provide information to the CAG

authority and that the CAG report reflects a huge loss of revenue.

3. Mr K. Khan, learned AAG submits that the Transport

Department has taken steps to ensure the repair of the

weighbridges. Mr Khan relied on the report filed by way of an

affidavit dated 17th March, 2026.

4. We may note, that this is a public interest litigation (PIL)

drawing the attention of this Court to the alleged misconduct on

the part of the Government officials in operating 28 weighbridges

across the State. The allegation of the petitioner is that overloaded

goods carrying vehicles are allowed to pass without proper

weighment causing loss of revenue, fees and charges to the State.

It appears from the orders passed by this Court that the State

was directed to carry out an inquiry into the matter by inspection

Page 2 of 9
of the weighbridges in the presence of the petitioner. The report

submitted by the Transport Department shows that none of the

24 weighbridges, any overloaded truck was found to pass. It

appears that the said statement made in the report of the

Transport Department was vehemently opposed to by the

petitioner. It was alleged by the petitioner that in the absence of

required number of weighbridges in many places, there was

illegality committed by Government officials at the 28

weighbridges which were operational. It was also alleged by the

petitioner that officials were involved in causing overloaded goods

vehicles to cross the weighment area without weighing the

vehicles, with impunity, thus, causing loss to the Government

exchequer to the tune of more than ₹600 crores.

5. Pursuant to the allegations made by the learned counsel

for the petitioner post the filing of the report by the Transport

Department, this Court constituted a three-member Committee.

The scope of the Committee was to inspect the weighbridges and

to submit its report. The said three-member Committee

submitted its report to this Court. From the said report, it

appears that out of 25 weighbridges, 6 weighbridges were non-

Page 3 of 9
functional. It also appears that the said report was prepared by

the three-member Committee on physical verification of the said

weighbridges. As recorded in one of the orders, the report

submitted by the three-member Committee supports the

contention of the petitioner with regard to the data disclosed by

the Transport Department regarding construction and

functioning of weighbridges in the State and the loss of revenue

by the Government. This Court noted that it is in the interest of

the State Government that all weighbridges should be made

functional at the earliest.

6. On 15th December, 2025, this Court in its order, in

paragraphs 2 to 5 noted as under:

“2. The said affidavit has disclosed the steps that have
been taken to identify a suitable place for the installation
of weighbridges. It appears that in respect of East Jaintia
Hills District of Ratacherra (Malidor), the weighbridge
remained non-functional since September, 2024 and only
on 20.11.2025, steps have been taken for repairing of entry
and exit road of the weighbridge. A request was made to
the Under Secretary to Serial No.4 Supplementary List Page
2 of 3 the Government of Meghalaya, Transport
Department, as per the estimate received from PWD and it
is assured that the weighbridge would be made functional
after complete repair of the approach road.

3. We direct the Transport Department to complete
the entire process for making the said weighbridge
functional positively within eight weeks from date.

Page 4 of 9

4. Insofar as the other weighbridges are concerned, there
are discrepancies in the affidavit read with the earlier
reports as pointed out by the learned counsel for the
applicant. However, the latest report filed has clarified the
shifting of the weighbridges and the present status of the
weighbridges. Apparently, the Transport Commissioner
has filed a report on 08.05.2025, which may not give a true
representation of the state of affairs of all the weighbridges
in the State, as would be revealed from the subsequent
reports filed in this regard.

5. The State should be careful in filing reports and
disclosing the steps taken with regard to functioning of the
weighbridges, as well as repair or construction of regular
weighbridges, as the case may be, in the report to be filed
on or before the next date of hearing and all future
proceedings.”

7. Today’s affidavit-cum-report submitted by Mr A.M.

Sangma, Commissioner of Transport in the Transport

Department, Government of Meghalaya, shows that the

Government vide letter dated 11th March, 2026, has instructed

the Chief Engineer, Shillong to start the work pertaining to repair

of Entry and Exit road of weighbridge located at Malidor

Ratacherra. From the report, it further appears that as far as

Wageasi weighbridge is concerned, tender was floated and the

successful bidder was given a Letter of Acceptance which has

been forwarded to the Government for its formal approval. From

Page 5 of 9
the Letter of Acceptance dated 3rd December, 2025, it appears

that the approval is still pending before the Government.

8. As far as Tikrikilla weighbridge is concerned, it appears

that tender was floated for supply, installation, testing and

commissioning of an electric lorry weighbridge at Tikrikilla

weighbridge, West Garo Hills on 9th September, 2025 and that

one Smti Adriana R. Marak, had emerged as the highest bidder.

It further appears from the affidavit-cum-report that Smti

Adriana R. Marak submitted an application which was received

by the Transport Department on 4th February, 2026, i.e., Letter

of Surrender and that the same has been intimated to the

Government vide letter dated 4th February, 2026 alongwith a

proposal for re-tendering of the said weighbridge. Thereafter,

there has been no progress with respect to the same.

9. As far as Bajengdoba weighbridge is concerned, it appears

that the tender was floated for the supply, installation, testing

and commissioning of an electronic lorry weighbridge on 9th

September, 2025, however, no tender bids were received. The

same was intimated to the Government vide letter dated 12th

Page 6 of 9
January, 2026 along with a proposal to re-tender the work. It

thus, appears that although no tender bids were received way

back in September, 2025, the Department had taken steps to

intimate the Government only in January, 2026. Thereafter, there

has been no progress.

10. As far as Saphai (Garampani) weighbridge is concerned,

instruction to operationalise has been issued on 27th February,

2026 on receiving approval from the Government. Thereafter,

there appears to be no progress. It further appears that the repair

of Entry and Exit road of weighbridge located at Malidor

Ratacherra, no work appears to have started there despite the

said weighbridge being non-functional since 5th September, 2024.

11. From the several orders passed by this Court it appears:

(i) that prima facie there has been suppression by the

Transport Department in providing information to this Court. The

same is evident from the report filed by the Transport Department

in this Court requiring the Court to appoint the three-member

Committee which clearly dislodges what was stated by the

Transport Department in its report;

Page 7 of 9

(ii) that despite the order dated 15th December, 2025, no

concrete steps have been taken by the said Department reflecting

its lackadaisical attitude. Not even an application has been

preferred by the Transport Department seeking extension of time

to comply with the order passed by this Court dated 15th

December, 2025; and,

(iii) the affidavit-cum-report filed on 17th March, 2026

reflecting the delay in ensuring that the weighbridges are made

functional.

12. As noted above, non-functional of the weighbridges causes

loss of revenue to the Government and as such, it is the duty of

the Transport Department to ensure that the weighbridges are

made functional at the earliest so that the interest of the State is

well protected.

13. Considering the overall conduct of the Transport

Department, we deem it appropriate to issue notice to the

Commissioner, Transport Department as to why show cause

notice should not be issued under the Contempt of Courts Act,

having regard to what is stated aforesaid and having regard to

non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court. Presently, we

Page 8 of 9
make it clear that this notice issued is not a notice under the

Contempt of Courts Act and whether or not notice ought to be

issued under the Contempt of Courts Act, will be considered on

the next date, after the Commissioner, Transport Department

files his affidavit.

14. Stand over to 15th April, 2026.

         (W. Diengdoh)                     (Revati Mohite Dere)
             Judge                            Chief Justice




Meghalaya
18.03.2026
 "Sylvana PS"




                                                            Page 9 of 9
 



Source link