Weighbridge anomalies in M’laya
By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, July 10: The High Court of Meghalaya has directed Tennydard M Marak, who claimed illegalities at 28 weighbridges in the state, to file another affidavit containing more details with sufficient evidence to show the error or falsity in the report of the government.
The court gave the direction while hearing a PIL (public interest litigation) against the state government regarding the operation of weighbridges across the state.
The petitioner alleged that the carriers and government officials are involved in illegal activities at the 28 weighbridges said to be operational across the state.
“Goods vehicles are allowed to pass without proper weighment. In many places, the weighbridges are or (have been made non-functional. There is corruption, resulting in loss of revenue to the government,” the court observed.
On December 5, 2024, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Indra Prasanna Mukerji and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh asked the government to file a report on the allegation. In a subsequent order, the court said that a proper inspection and report were not forthcoming, seeking a report to be filed by May 2.
The state government filed the report on May 16, claiming not a single overloaded truck had passed or was allowed to pass through the 28 weighbridges.
It also stated that in the international transit among Bhutan, India, and Bangladesh, the level of control by the Indian authority was minimal. By the court’s order dated May 16, the bench asked the petitioner to respond to the report filed by the government.
The petitioner took an exception to this report, saying that the government’s assertion was not true. The government was asked to file a report to respond to the petitioner’s objections.
Another report filed by the government reiterated that there was no irregularity or illegality in the weighing of goods vehicles across the 28 weighbridges.
P Agarwal, the advocate for the petitioner, did not accept this report of the government. Her client was directed to file another affidavit containing more details with sufficient evidence to refute the government’s report.
“Shorn of the necessary details, it would not be possible for this court to adjudge the merits of the allegation made by the petitioner. Such an affidavit in response should be filed by August 1,” the court said.