WP(C) 186/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BK SHARMA Heard Mr. PJ Saikia, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Dr. BP Todi, learn ed, Government Advocate, State of Meghalaya. In this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the order, dated 21-1 2-2009, issued by respondent No. 4, namely, Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills District, Shillong, which is based on the public notice, dated 17-12-2009, wher eby respondent No. 3, namely, Director of Mineral Resources, Government of Megha laya, Shillong, has declared that all mineral Iaden vehicles, plying on Nangalbl bra-Dainadubi road, can undertake weighment of their mineral consignment at Depa Garat, Sarangma (Dainadubi) East Garo Hills District, of Shri Sondith D. Shira, located, at Depa Garath Sarangma (Dinadubi), on National Highway 52, and that a weighment certificate, obtained from the said weighbridge, should be produced a t the checkgate of the Mines Royalty Inspector for the purpose of assessment of royalty and mineral cess on mineral. Referring to the above notice, dated 17-12-2009, the impugned order, dated 21-12 -2009, mentions that from the said notice, it appears that the weighment certifi cate, issued by SD Weighbridge, can be used at the DMR Checkgate and also the Ta xation Checkgate, where it is currently being used, and, hence, there is no need for the coal laden trucks to undertake weighment at Monim Weighbridge and the O perators, at Momin Weighbridge, cannot compel any trucker to undertake weighment at their weighbridge. By letter, dated 21-12-2009, the Deputy Commissioner, Eas t Garo Hills District, Shillong, requested respondent No. 5, namely, Superintend ent of Police, East Garo Hills, Shillong, to clear all the vehicles, which are s tranded at the Momin Weighbridge and ensure that no vehicle is forced to underta ke weighment at Momin Weighbridge. The petitioner, now, contends that the petitioner has been running Momin Weighbr idge bridge under the lease granted by the appropriate authority and that the in structions given by letter, dated 21-12-2009, are illegal inasmuch as the trucke rs are, now, being stopped, by police personnel, on the strength of the letter, dated 21-12-2009, from getting their trucks weighed at the petitioner’s weighbri dge. By filing an affidavit, respondent No. 4 has contended to the effect, inter alia , that despite the fact that mineral laden trucks were not required to be weighe d at the petitioner’s weighbridge, the petitioner had been compelling the trucke rs to get their trucks weighed at the petitioner’s weighbridge and, that is why, the impugned letter, dated 21-12-2009, had to be issued by the respondents. The respondent concerned has also not admitted the petitioner’s allegation that for ce has been applied on truckers restraining them from getting their trucks weigh ed at the petitioner’s weighbridge. In a proceeding, such as, the present one, it is not possible to decide, without recording evidence, disputed questions of fact as to whether the petitioner had or had not been compelling the truckers to get their trucks weighed at the peti tioner’s weighbridge. It is also not possible, in the present petition, to decid e, without recording evidence, as to whether the police personnel, pursuant to t he impugned letter, dated 21-12-2009, are or are not compelling truckers not to get their trucks weighed at the petitioner’s weighbridge and/or whether the poli ce personnel are or are not stopping the petitioner from operating her weighbrid ge. As far as the letter, dated 21-12-2009, is concerned, the same cannot be said to be illegal inasmuch as it does not stop the petitioner from operating his weigh bridge in accordance with law. Because of what have been pointed out above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order, dated 21-12-2009, nor do we have sufficient materials on rec ord to pass any direction, in this writ petition, as far as the disputed questio ns of fact, with regard to the petitioner’s allegation that she is not being all owed to operate her weighbridge, are concerned. In view of the above, this writ petition is not admitted and the same shall acco rdingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.