Serial No. 02 Supplementary List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C) No. 18 of 2026 Date of Decision: 04.02.2026 Debapratim Das, Ages about 58 years, S/o Late M.R. Das, R/o Upland Road, Laitumkhrah, Shillong-793003, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Meghalaya represented by The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Department of Transport, Shillong, Meghalaya 2. Meghalaya Transport Corporation (MTC) A Government of Meghalaya Undertaking represented by its Managing Director, ISBT, Shillong-793016, Meghalaya … Respondent(s) Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Gohain Adv. with Mr. A. Medok, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. I. Lyngwa, GA (For R 1) Mr. S. Sen, Adv, (For R 2) 2026:MLHC:34 ___________________________________________________________ i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc: ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No in press: JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. Heard Mr. R.B. Gohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for directions for allotment of space in the new MTC premises, and for execution of agreement for allotment of shop in the said premises. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the process was on for allotment of shop, till date the same has not fructified, which has compelled the writ petitioner to approach this Court by way of the instant writ petition. 4. Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, in reply has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-G (Page-26 to the writ petition), which is the Addendum to Settlement that has been given to the writ petitioner for his perusal and necessary action. He further submits that the writ petitioner had been instructed to meet the respondent personally, to settle the matter. Apart from the letter dated 27.11.2025, wherein certain queries have been raised, he submits the writ petitioner in spite of repeated 2026:MLHC:34 reminders has not appeared before the respondent No. 2, to complete the process. 5. This Court on hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record and on consideration of the facts, it appears that the writ petitioner has un-necessarily filed the instant writ petition instead of pursuing the matter before the respondent No. 2, to its logical conclusion. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at this stage itself by directing the writ petitioner to co-operate with the respondent No. 2, to resolve the matter at the earliest. 7. As ordered above, the matter stands disposed of. JUDGE Meghalaya 04.02.2026 “V. Lyndem-PS” 2026:MLHC:34 Digitally signed by VALENTINO LYNDEM Date: 2026.02.04 17:46:18 IST