Serial No. 28 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C) No. 444 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.02.2026 Smti Kwenlin Sun, Proprietor of M/s Kewnlin Sun, R/o Lawmei, Pdeng Shnong, Shillong, East Khasi Hills district, Meghalaya … Petitioner(s) Vs. 1. The Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong Represented by its Secretary to the Executive Committee, KHADC 2. The Chief Executive Member, KHADC, Shillong 3. The Executive Member, I/C Trade etc., KHADC, Shillong 4. The Executive Member, I/C Finance etc., KHADC, Shillong 5. The Joint Secretary to the Executive Committee, KHADC, Shillong …. Respondent(s) Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Deb, Adv. with Ms. E. Dkhar, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. J.K. Pariat, Adv 2026:MLHC:81 _________________________________________________________ i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc: ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No in press: JUDGMENT AND ORDER 1. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the termination/cancellation order dated 10.09.2025, whereby the petitioner’s work order/contract dated 12.05.2023, for printing of Smart Card Trading License, has been cancelled. 2. Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cancellation is unwarranted and purely an arbitrary action, which is premeditated. As such, he seeks this Court interference and for payment of adequate compensation. 3. Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. J.K. Pariat, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as it is purely in the realm of private law, and that the petitioner is at liberty to seek alternate remedy, if so aggrieved. 4. Having the learned counsel for the parties and on examination of the materials on record, it appears from the prayer itself 2026:MLHC:81 that the grievance is with the cancellation and to allow the writ petitioner to continue with the work in terms of the contract dated 12.05.2023. The prayer for compensation is also noted. 5. In the considered view of this Court, a writ petition for specific performance is not maintainable, as also for compensation that is yet to be ascertained if payable at all, which is in the realm of private law. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is held to be not maintainable, and the same is dismissed, however with a liberty to the petitioner to seek alternate remedy, under private law. JUDGE Meghalaya 17.02.2026 “V. Lyndem-PS” 2026:MLHC:81 Digitally signed by VALENTINO LYNDEM Date: 2026.02.18 17:02:58 IST