Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Meghalaya · body

2025 DAILYLAW 859 (MEG)

Meghalaya Advertising Association v. State Of Meghalaya

WP(C)/220/2017 · 2025-06-12

B Bhattacharjee

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Serial No. 03 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C) No.220 of 2017 Date of Order: 12.06.2025 1. Meghalaya Advertising Association Having its registered office at Bareh Building, Dhankheti, Main Road, Shillong-03, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. 2. Shri Lienkhum Gangte President of Meghalaya Advertising Association, S/o (L) T.C. Thumo Lmang, R/o Passah House, Streamlet Road, Laban Shillong-4, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. …..Petitioners -VERSUS- 1. State of Meghalaya, through the Commissioner and Secretary Govt. of Meghalaya, Transport Department, Shillong. 2.Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District Shillong Meghalaya. 3. Superintendent of Police, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong. 4. The Secretary, Public Works (R&B), Department Shillong Meghalaya. 5. Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) National Highway Division Shillong Meghalaya. 6. Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads) National Highway Division Shillong Meghalaya. 7. Executive Engineer, By Pass Division, Dhankheti, Shillong. 8. Shillong Municipal Board, Shillong. 9. Chief Executive Member, Shillong Municipal Board. …..Respondents 2025:MLHC:498 Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Khyriem, Adv For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl.Sr.GA (R:1-7) Mr. W.G.R. Mihsill, Adv (R:8-9) (ORAL) Mr. S. Khyriem, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in-spite of his best effort, he could not obtain necessary instruction from the petitioner in terms of the order dated 11.09.2023. He further submits that he has no instruction to proceed with the hearing and that appropriate order may be passed in the matter. Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl.Sr.GA appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 – 7 submits that since there is no desire on the part of the petitioner to pursue the matter anymore, the same may be dismissed for default. Perusal of the order sheet of this case reveals that by order dated 11.09.2023, the counsel appearing for the petitioner was granted time to obtain instruction as to whether there remains any cause of action surviving in the matter. From the said date till today, no instruction could be obtained by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner has no desire to pursue the matter. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed for default. Judge Meghalaya 12.06.2025 “Shrity,PS” 2025:MLHC:498 Digitally signed by SHRITY CH MOMIN Date: 2025.06.12 18:27:47 IST