WP(C) 6500/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTG.) MR. A .K. GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH [A.K.GOEL, CJ (ACTG.)] This writ petition is filed against the impugned notice dated 7.12.2007 issued by the Director of Mineral Resources, Government of Meghalaya ( Annexure - V to the writ petition) requiring all the vehicles plying on Jowai - Shillong Road ( National Highway -44) to undertake weighment of their mineral consignment at the Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council’s weighbridge at Mookyndur. Ac cording to the petitioner, the impugned notice is in violation of the order date d 7.6.2007 passed by this Court in WP(C) 263(SH)/2006 (Meghalaya Commercial Truc k Owners & Operator Association Vs. Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council & Ors.). 2. This Court considered the matter at the interim stage by the order dated 20.12.2007 in the light of earlier order dated 7.6.2007 and the notification i ssued by the Government of Meghalaya on 11.9.2003 laying down the procedure in the matter of installation or operation of weighbridge in the State and observed as follows: Admittedly as on date, the notification dated 11.9.2003 issued by the Commissio ner & Secretary, Govt. Of Meghalaya, Transport Department governs the procedure to be followed in the matter of installation and operation of weighbridges in Me ghalaya. The challenge in WP(C) No.263 (SH)/2006 was to the notification dated 3 .10.2006 issued by the Council for weighment of all coal loaded trucks on the sa me bridge as involved therein. This Court in its judgment and order dated 7.6.20 07 comprehending that the same (notification) involved the act of installation a nd use of the weighbridge, returned a finding that it (notification) was inconsi stent with or in contravention with the one dated 11.9.2003. The judgement recor ds that in spite of opportunity given the Council, it could not disclose the sou rce of its powers for issuing the same and thus at the first instance, the opera tion of the impugned notification was stayed. This Court following a critical ex amination of the counter of the Council held against its claimed authority to is sue the notification. While recording that conclusion, this Court noticed the Co uncil’s justification therefor namely, to realize the royalty due to the governm ent. It, however, held that such a justification could not be equated with the e xistence of its power to issue the notification. It therefore left the Council a t a liberty either to raise a dispute as to the share of such royalty in terms o f paragraph 9(2) of the Sixth Schedule or to propose to the State Government for joint monitoring of the operation of the mineral/coal laden trucks. As observed hereinabove, the impugned notification was set aside. The letter dated 10.10.2007 of the Chief Executive Member of the Council produced before this Court in course of the arguments dwells on the issue of sh aring of royalty and contains a request to the Chief Minister of the State for r ecognizing such weighbridge as official weighbridge so that the weighment certif icate issued could be taken into consideration by all concerned departments for determination of excess load along the National Highway Nos.40 and 44. A bare re ading of this letter, per se does not demonstrate any decision of the government to regularize the installation or operation of the weighbridge installed by the Council in terms of the norms prescribed by the notification dated 11.9.2003. T he respondents as on date have not been able to place before this Court any mate rial to proclaim that the State Government has taken any decision to take over s aid weighbridge to be operated independently to the exclusion of the Council in exercise of its powers under Section 23C of the Act. The order dated 13.7.1992 of the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Rule 66(SH)/1992 does not deal with the power and authority of the Council to install or operate the weighbridge in question. No such controversy was in the issue in the said proceeding. This ord er, therefore, per se cannot be said to have any overriding effect on the findin g recorded by the learned Single Judge in his judgment and order dated 7.6.2007 on this aspect of the lis. In view of the admitted fact that the determination made by this Court i n WP(C) No.263(SH)/2006 remains un-interfered with as on date and in absence of persuasive materials to hold that the State of Meghalaya in the fact of the abov e decision of this Court has either regularized/acknowledged the installation or operation of the weighbridge in favour of the Council in terms of the notificat ion dated 11.9.2003 and/or has taken over the weighbridge for being operated by it, I am of the view that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case for some interim protection. The impugned notice being prima facie incompa tible with the letter and spirit of the judgment and order dated 7.6.2007, the p lea of prejudice does not appeal to this Court. 3. Since none has entered appearance on behalf of either of the parties, we are of the view that instead of keeping the matter pending, the same can be dis posed of by setting aside the impugned notice with liberty to the concerned auth orities to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after taking into account t he observation of this Court referred to above. We order accordingly.