Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 497 (GAU)

Kmenlang Suiam v. State of Meghalaya

2011-06-07

C.R.SARMA, I.A.ANSARI

body2011
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of both these writ petitions inasmuch as these two writ petitions are inextricably inter-linked, involve facts, which are co-related with each other, giving rise to common questions of law and, on the request made by the learned Counsel for the parties concerned, both these writ petitions have been heard together. BACKGROUND FACTS: (i) Pending finalization and approval of the Rules for Installation, Regulation and Operation of Weighbridges in the State of Meghalaya, the Government of Meghalaya issued, on 11th September, 2003, a notification, prescribing the procedure to be followed in the matters of installation and operation of Weighbridges in Meghalaya, the notification having been claimed to be a notification issued in exercise of the power conferred on the Government by Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section138 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (ii) Following the procedure prescribed in the notification aforementioned, the writ Petitioner installed a Weighbridge, at Thangskai, Jaintia Hills District, at National Highway-44. This was followed by a formal agreement executed, in writing, on 20th December, 2007, between the Petitioner, on the one hand, and the Commissioner of Transport, Govt. of Meghalaya, on the other, whereby the Petitioner's Weighbridge was approved by the latter for being used by the Transport Department, Govt. of Meghalaya, for the purpose of weighment of vehicles for a period of three years on payment of an annual premium of Rs. 30 lakhs by the Petitioner to the Government. (iii) The said notification, dated 11th September, 2003, was, later on, replaced by Meghalaya Installation, Regulation, Maintenance & Operation of Weighbridges Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2009 Rules'). Rule 4 of 2009 Rules prohibits installation and operation of a weighbridge unless a person, who intends installing and operating a Weighbridge, has made an application, in writing, to the Transport Department, through Commissioner of Transport, seeking permission to install, run and operate the weighbridge. Rule 4 of 2009 Rules prohibits installation and operation of a weighbridge unless a person, who intends installing and operating a Weighbridge, has made an application, in writing, to the Transport Department, through Commissioner of Transport, seeking permission to install, run and operate the weighbridge. Rule 5 of 2009 Rules provides for granting of permission by the Commissioner of Transport if he is satisfied that the proposed place, for installation/operation of the Weighbridge on the National Highway or the State PWD Road, fulfills the conditions embodied in Rule 5, namely, (a) that adequate parking space and lay bye facility so as not to cause problems of traffic congestion on the highway is available; (b) that it is maintained in a safe and appropriate manner; (c) that the proposed location is consistent with public safety and convenience; and (d) that provision for off loading the excess loading is available. (iv) Rule 6 of 2009 Rules provides that after satisfying himself that the application is complete and meets the requirement as laid down in the aforesaid Rules 4 and 5, the Commissioner of Transport shall forward the application with all required information to the Secretary of Transport Department for issue of permission. (v) Rule 7 of 2009 Rules makes the permission, granted under Rule 6, renewable every three years subject to the condition that the proposal for grant/renewal of permission, as the case may be, is accompanied by a certificate issued by the Inspector of Weights & Measures, Government of Meghalaya, as to the accuracy and correctness of the device. (vi) The permission, granted under Rule 6, for installation and operation of a weighbridge, is renewable under Rule 7 subject to the condition that the proposal for renewal is accompanied by a certificate issued by the Inspector of Weights & Measures, Government of Meghalaya, as to the accuracy and correctness of the device, i.e., Weighbridge. (vii) Under Clause 9 of the Agreement, dated 20th December, 2010, which the Petitioner had entered into with the Transport Department, Govt. of Meghalaya, renewal was subject to making of an application with a renewal fee of Rs. 250/- to be deposited by Treasury Challan. (vii) Under Clause 9 of the Agreement, dated 20th December, 2010, which the Petitioner had entered into with the Transport Department, Govt. of Meghalaya, renewal was subject to making of an application with a renewal fee of Rs. 250/- to be deposited by Treasury Challan. (viii) According to the writ Petitioner, though the Petitioner's agreement with the Government was executed, on 20.12.2007, for a period of 3 (three) years i.e. 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the Petitioner's weighbridge was made operational/functional w.e.f. 01.09.2009 inasmuch as the necessary press release, in this regard, was issued, on 05.06.2008, by the Office of the Commissioner of Transport, but the weighbridge was, again, closed by letter, dated 21st March, 2009, issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner during the period of the President's Rule in the State. However, the weighbridge was, again, made functional by an order, dated 15.09.2009, passed by the Commissioner of Transport, Government of Meghalaya. Thus, the Petitioner could not run the weighbridge effectively for more than one year. (ix) Since the Petitioner had been paying the premium as required by the agreement, she was expecting renewal of the permission as stipulated in the agreement, particularly, when the 2009 Rules also provide for renewal of permission every three years. The Petitioner accordingly, having complied with all the requirements, made an application, on 21.08.2009, seeking extension of her permission and, consequently, renewal of her lease agreement. Despite the fact that the Petitioner, while so applying for renewal of the permission, submitted necessary certificate issued by the Inspector of Weights & Measures followed by deposit of requisite renewal fees, no response was received from the Government in this regard. (x) Unable to bear the inaction on the part of the Government in renewing the permission and also the agreement for lease, the Writ Petitioner preferred a writ petition under Article 226, which gave rise to W.P. (C) No. 6759 of 2010. This writ petition was disposed of, on 15.12.2010, with a direction to the Respondents to take appropriate decision on the Petitioner's application seeking renewal of lease agreement. Contrary to the Petitioner's expectation, the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Transport Department, issued a communication, on 17.12.2010, addressed to the Petitioner, whereby the Petitioner was informed that in view of the Government's policy decision taken, on 02.06.2010, for setting up integrated gates/weighbridges, no extension, in respect of the Petitioner's request for permission could be granted. Contrary to the Petitioner's expectation, the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Transport Department, issued a communication, on 17.12.2010, addressed to the Petitioner, whereby the Petitioner was informed that in view of the Government's policy decision taken, on 02.06.2010, for setting up integrated gates/weighbridges, no extension, in respect of the Petitioner's request for permission could be granted. (xi) According to the Petitioner, on National Highway Nos. 40, 44 and 62, similar weighbridges are being allowed to run and operate even after expiry of the lease agreement and, hence, the Government's decision not to renew the permission, and in consequence thereof, not to renew lease, was arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, further, the provisions of renewal, prescribed by the 2009 Rules, cannot be set at naught by a policy decision of the Government. Consequently, according to the Petitioner, the Petitioner, having complied with all the requirements of 2009 Rules, is entitled to get the renewal of permission as well as renewal of lease. The Petitioner has, therefore, sought for the following remedies by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which has given rise to W.P. (C) No. 6845 of 2010. Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus shall not be issued declaring the policy decision taken by the Government on 02.06.2010, as unconstitutional and illegal and/or issue a writ of certiorari setting aside and quashing the policy decision taken by the Government on 02.06.2010 as unconstitutional and illegal and further declare that the said policy decision in any case is not applicable in respect of operation and renewal of weighbridge of the Petitioner at Thangskai on National Highway 44 Jaintia Hills District and also declare the consequential impugned letter, dated 20.12.2010, issued by the Respondent No. 2 asking the Respondent No. 7 to close down the weighbridge of the Petitioner at Thangskai on National Highway 44 as illegal and direct the Respondents to renew the approval for operating the weighbridge at Thangskai on National Highway 44 by the Petitioner as per the terms and conditions in the Agreement, dated 20.12.2007. 2. The Respondents have resisted the writ petition. 2. The Respondents have resisted the writ petition. With the help of an affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Transport Department, the Respondents have contended, inter alia, that the Petitioner's permission expired on 19.12.2010 and the renewal of permission is neither automatic nor as a matter of right. The Government's policy decision not to grant extension or renewal of permission after the expiry of the existing term has been taken in the larger interest of the public and the same does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of this Court's extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. 3. With regard to the Petitioner's claim that some of the Weighbridges were allowed to function even after expiry of their respective terms of the lease, the Respondents have contended that those weighbridges are continuing on the strength of the various orders of the Court. The Respondents categorically state, in their affidavit-in-opposition, that the Government has not granted renewal in respect of any lease agreement inasmuch as the State Government has decided to set up joint/integrated check gates with weighbridge facility on National Highway Nos. 40, 44 and 62 in order to facilitate operation of government toll gates in one place instead of locating such gates at various places on the same route. It is also contended by the Respondents that the provisions, contained in 2009 Rules, form enabling provisions and the same do not disempowered the Government from refusing to grant extension of permission in public interest. 4. Repelling the pleas taken by the Respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition, the Petitioner, with the help of a rejoinder, contends that 2009 Rules have been framed in exercise of the power vested in the Government by Section 138(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and, hence, the same cannot be dislodged or replaced by a policy decision inasmuch as the policy decision, in order to be effective, has to have the support of the Cabinet in the matter and the mandate of Article 162 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended by the Petitioner that the policy decision, having been taken in respect of weighbridges situated on National Highway 62, the same cannot be extended to the Petitioner's weighbridge, which is located on National Highway 44. The Petitioner, therefore, alleges violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. It is also contended by the Petitioner that the policy decision, having been taken in respect of weighbridges situated on National Highway 62, the same cannot be extended to the Petitioner's weighbridge, which is located on National Highway 44. The Petitioner, therefore, alleges violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, namely, W.P. (C) No. 6845 of 2010, the Petitioner obtained a copy of the policy decision, dated 02.06.2010, and challenged the validity of the said policy decision by filing another writ petition, under Article 226, which has given rise to W.P. (C) No. 206 of 2011, the case of the Petitioner, in W.P. (C) No. 206 of 2011, being, in brief, as under: (a) As the policy decision pertains to National Highway 62, the same is not applicable to the Petitioner's Weighbridge, which is located at National Highway 44; (b) The Respondents' refusal to renew the permission and, consequently, the lease, on the basis of the said policy decision, is arbitrary and unjustified inasmuch as the Petitioner has complied with all the necessary requirements as provided by 2009 Rules for obtaining renewal of permission. 6. The Petitioner has, therefore, sought for issuance of an appropriate Writ of Mandamus declaring the policy decision, dated 02.06.2010, as unconstitutional and illegal and volatile of the provisions of renewal as prescribed by 2009 Rules. 7. Resisting the writ petition, the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Transport Department, has averred, in his affidavit-in-opposition, that the renewal of permission, under 2009 Rules, is not automatic and the Petitioner cannot claim renewal of permission as a matter of right and though the renewal application, submitted by the Petitioner, was duly processed, the same could not be renewed due to the policy decision, which the Government had taken, on 02.06.2010, as indicated hereinbefore. The policy decision does not only apply to National Highway 62, but also applies to all the National Highways including National Highway 44 inasmuch as the policy decision contemplates setting up of check gates at every entry and exist points of all the inter-State roads and not merely at National Highway 62. 8. We have heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, and Dr. B.P. Todi, learned Addl. Advocate General, Meghalaya, appearing on behalf of the State of Meghalaya. 9. Mr. 8. We have heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, and Dr. B.P. Todi, learned Addl. Advocate General, Meghalaya, appearing on behalf of the State of Meghalaya. 9. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior counsel, drawing our attention to the notification, dated 11.09.2003, the 2009 Rules, the Lease Agreement, dated 20.12.2007, and the Government's policy decision, dated 02.06.2010, has submitted that the Government's refusal to grant permission is arbitrary and volatile of the provisions of the 2009 Rules, when the Petitioner, having complied with all the requirements, as regards renewal of permission in terms of 2009 Rules, has applied for renewal of permission for running and operating her weighbridge. The learned Senior counsel submits that in view of the provisions for renewal of permission as embodied in 2009 Rules and the renewal of lease as contained in the agreement, the Petitioner had legitimate expectation that her permission as well as the lease would be renewed as she has made huge investment in establishing the weighbridge and when she had complied with all the necessary requirements for renewal of the permission, the Government's policy decision not to grant extension of the permission and/or the lease is arbitrary and illegal. 10. It is contended by Mr. Bhattacharyya that in the face of the provisions for renewal of permission, contained in 2009 Rules and the renewal clause in respect of the lease, the Petitioner must be taken to have acquired a perpetual right to get the lease renewed and, hence, the policy decision, which the State Government claims to have taken, without repealing the 2009 Rules, cannot take away the Petitioner's right to avail renewal of lease. The learned Senior counsel reiterates that as the policy decision pertains to National Highway 62, the same is not applicable to the Petitioner's weighbridge situated at National Highway 44. 11. Mr. Bhattacharyya further submits that the lease agreement, being perpetual in nature, must be treated to have given the Petitioner the right to demand, at least, one renewal of the lease. Support for this submission is sought to be derived by Mr. Bhattacharyya from the decisions in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lalji Tandon, AIR 2004 SC 32 and Syed Jaleel Zane v. P. Venkata Murlidhar, AIR 1981 AP 328 . 12. Controvert arguments advanced on behalf of the writ Petitioner, Dr. Todi, learned Addl. Support for this submission is sought to be derived by Mr. Bhattacharyya from the decisions in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lalji Tandon, AIR 2004 SC 32 and Syed Jaleel Zane v. P. Venkata Murlidhar, AIR 1981 AP 328 . 12. Controvert arguments advanced on behalf of the writ Petitioner, Dr. Todi, learned Addl. Advocate General, while supporting the Government's policy decision, submits that the renewal of permission, as provided by the 2009 Rules, is not automatic, but only an enabling provision and cannot, therefore, be treated to have vested in any person, such as the Petitioner, any right, far less indefeasible right, to demand automatic renewal of permission or demand renewal of permission as a matter of course. Dr. Todi submits that the State's said policy decision is applicable to the inter-State roads in the State of Meghalaya and, as such, the policy decision is not in respect of National Highway 62 alone. The learned Addl. Advocate General submits that neither the provisions contained in the 2009 Rules nor the agreement, entered into between the parties on 20.12.2007, disempowered the Government from taking a policy decision in the larger public interest and as long as the Government's policy decision, so taken, remains in the larger public interest, the Petitioner cannot demand renewal of permission or renewal of lease as a matter of right by throwing into the wind the said policy decision of the Government. When the Government's decision not to allow extension of permission and/or lease is based in public interest, such a decision cannot be described, according to the learned Addl. Advocate General, as an arbitrary and/or illegal decision and may not, therefore, be interfered with. 13. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on careful reading of the pleadings as well as the materials on record, we find that there is no dispute that the Petitioner's weighbridge is situated at National Highway 44 nor is there any dispute that despite the fact that there is a provision for renewal of permission as regards Weighbridges under the 2009 Rules and there is an agreement between the Petitioner on the one hand and Government of Meghalaya on the other, for renewal of the lease, the Government has refused to renew the permission under 2009 Rules, and, consequently, the lease, on the ground of the policy decision, dated 02.06.2010. 14. 14. The question, therefore, is whether the refusal to renew the lease is sustainable in law? This question necessarily requires us to examine not only the nature of the agreement, which the parties had, but also the scope of renewal of permission under the 2009 Rules, the validity and justification of the policy decision, dated 02.06.2010, and the impact thereof on the Petitioner's rights, if any, to seek renewal of her permission and also the lease. 15. While considering the present writ petitions, it needs to be noted, at the very outset, that the executive instructions, embodied in the Notification, dated 11.9.2003, prohibited installation or operation of a weighbridge for commercial purposes without permission having been granted, in this regard, by the Transport Department. Clearly, therefore, no person should have legally installed or operated a weighbridge, in the State of Meghalaya, without permission having been granted by the Transport Department in accordance with the procedure laid down in the said Notification. In fact, the Notification, dated 11.9.2003, made it clear that pending finalization and approval of the rules for installation, regulation and operation of weighbridges in exercise of the Government's power conferred by Section 138(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the procedure, embodied in the Notification, dated 11.9.2003, shall be followed in the matter of installation and operation of weighbridges. 16. While considering the present writ petitions, it also needs to be noted that the agreement, in question, was executed, on 20.12.2007 between the Commissioner of Transport, on the one hand, and the present writ Petitioner, on the other, and this agreement was entered into by the parties at the time, when the executive instructions, as contained in the Notification, dated 11.9.2003, aforementioned, was in force. 17. Coupled with the above, one must also bear in mind that the agreement, in question, refers to both lease and license. While the lease was for a period of three years with the provision of revalidation, annually, subject to performance and clearance of all the Government dues and fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the lease by the lessee, the license was granted for a period of three years, which was renewable at the time of making of an application, with a renewal fees of Rs. 250/-, subject to the condition that the application for renewal of license was required to be made one month before the expiry of the term of the license with a penalty clause that failure to apply for renewal of license within time would attract termination of contract. 18. From the executive instructions contained in the Notification, dated 11.9.2003, it is clear, as already indicated above, that it was illegal to install or operate a weighbridge for commercial purpose unless permitted by the Transport Department in terms of the conditions embodied in the said executive instructions. Even the 2009 Rules do not permit installation and operation of weighbridge without permission having been granted in terms of the provisions contained in the 2009 Rules. Unless, therefore, requisite permission is granted under 2009 Rules, no installation or operation of a weighbridge, in the State of Meghalaya, is legal. 19. No wonder, therefore, that Rule 3 of 2009 Rules provides that the Government may install and maintain, by itself, as many weighbridges, for the purpose of Section 144 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and/or on such places as it may think necessary or may allow any private person, body of persons, company or organization to install and maintain weighbridges on payment of lease amount to be determined, in each case, by the Government, after calling tender. This shows that as far as the Government is concerned, it may install and maintain its own weighbridges on such places as it thinks fit or it may also allow any private person, body of persons, company or organization to install and maintain such weighbridges on payment of lease amount to be determined, in each case, by the Government, after calling for tender meaning thereby that the Government has the primary right to install and operate weighbridges on such places as it thinks fit and, if it so decides, it may allow any private person, body of persons, company or organization to install and maintain such weighbridges on payment of lease amount to be determined by the Government. Rule 4 prohibits installation and running of weighbridge by a person, who has not attain the age of 21 years. 20. Rule 4 prohibits installation and running of weighbridge by a person, who has not attain the age of 21 years. 20. Since the executive instructions, embodied in the notification, dated 11-09-2003, and the 2009 Rules are not under challenge, we proceed on the premises that the Government had the power not to allow installation or operation of weighbridge for commercial purposes without permission having been granted by the Transport Department. Whether the Government really has the power to prohibit even installation/operation of weighbridge for commercial purpose without permission having been granted by the Government is a question, which we leave open for decision, in future, if such a question arises. 21. We may, now, turn to Rules 5 and 6, which, being relevant, are reproduced below: 5. Permission for weighbridge at the satisfaction of Commissioner of Transport: In considering the grant of permission, the Commissioner of Transport should satisfy himself that the proposed place for installation and operation of the Weighbridge on National Highway/State PWD Road should fulfill the following, namely: (a) that adequate parking space and lay bye facility so as not to cause problems of traffic congestion on the highway is available; (b) that it is maintained in a safe and appropriate manner; (c) that the proposed location is consistent with public safety and convenience; and (d) that provision for off loading the excess loading is available. 6. Commissioner of Transport to forward the application to the Secretary, Transport: After satisfying himself that the application is complete and meets the requirement as laid down in the aforesaid rules 4 and 5, the Commissioner of Transport shall forward the application with all required information to the Secretary of Transport Department for issue of permission. 22. Close on the heels of Rules 5 and 6, Rule 7 lays down as follows: 7. Renewal of: Any permission referred to in Rule 6 above, shall be renewable every 3(three) years and no such permission shall be granted or renewed unless the proposal for the grant or renewal of permission, as the case may be, is accompanied by the certificate issued by the Inspector or Weights and Measures, Government of Meghalaya as to the accuracy and correctness of the device. 23. 23. From a combined reading of Rules 5 and 6, what surfaces is that the proposed places, for installation and operation of weighbridges on National Highway/State PWD road, should fulfill the following conditions, namely: (a) that adequate parking space and lay bye facility so as not to cause problems of traffic congestion on the highway is available; (b) that it is maintained in a safe and appropriate manner; (c) that the proposed location is consistent with public safety and convenience; and (d) that provision for off loading the excess loading is available. 24. Rule 6 makes it clear that when the Commissioner of Transport is satisfied that the application, for installation and operation of weighbridge, is complete and meets the requirements of Rules 4 and 5, he shall forward the application, with all requisite information, to the Secretary of Transport Department for issue of permission and Rule 7 makes it clear that once a permission is granted, it is renewable every three years, the only condition being that the permission cannot be granted or renewed unless the proposal for grant or renewal is accompanied by a certificate issued by the Inspector of Weights & Measures, Government of Meghalaya, as to the accuracy and correctness of the device, meaning thereby that when a licensee/lessee applies, under 2009 Rules, for renewal of permission and his application is accompanied by a certificate issued by the Inspector of Weights & Measures, Government of Meghalaya, as to the accuracy and correctness of the device, the permission shall, ordinarily, be renewed. 25. What emerges from the above discussion is that no weighbridge can be installed and/or operated for commercial purposes without permission from the Government. Prior to the enforcement of 2009 Rules, it was under the executive instructions, notified on 11.9.2003, that permission was being granted and after 2009 Rules have come into force, the permission is required to be granted under these Rules. Both, executive instructions as well as the Rules, speak of granting of lease by the Government allowing a person to install and operate weighbridge commercially. 26. What is, however, of paramount importance to note is that unless permission was granted under the executive instructions aforementioned or is granted under 2009 Rules (since after 2009 Rules have come into force), the question of a weighbridge being installed or operated by a party does not arise at all. 26. What is, however, of paramount importance to note is that unless permission was granted under the executive instructions aforementioned or is granted under 2009 Rules (since after 2009 Rules have come into force), the question of a weighbridge being installed or operated by a party does not arise at all. Granting of permission, under 2009 Rules, too, is, therefore, sine qua non for installation and operation of weighbridges and, consequently, a lease cannot be granted unless permission is granted or a lease cannot be renewed unless the permission itself is renewed. 27. We may pause here to point out that a close reading of the agreement, in question, shows that it was a lease in perpetuity inasmuch as the agreement provided for renewal of a lease on making of an application fulfilling the terms and conditions of the agreement and payment of renewal fee. After coming into force of the 2009 Rules, this right to have renewal of the lease becomes subject to the paramount condition of renewal of permission under 2009 Rules. In other words, as already indicated above, unless permission, as regards installation and operation of weighbridge, is renewed under 2009 Rules, the question of renewal of a lease, such as, the present one, does not arise even if the lease is perpetual in nature. 28. In short, permission for renewal is a condition precedent for allowing the lease to be operated or be renewed. 29. We may pause here to point out how to construe whether a lease is or is not perpetual in nature; and, if so, how to read a renewal clause in a lease agreement. 30. In India, law does not prohibit perpetual lease, but clear and unambiguous language would be required to infer such a lease and if the language is ambiguous, the Court would opt for an interpretation, which would negative the plea of the perpetual lease, because the Court always leans against a perpetual renewal and, hence, where there is a clause for renewal subject to the same terms and conditions, it would be construed as giving a right to renewal for the same period as the period of the original lease, but not a right to second or third renewal and so on unless, of course, the language is clear and unambiguous. 31. 31. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lalji Tandon, AIR 2004 SC 32 , the Supreme Court, while referring to a large number of decisions, agreed with the law laid down in Syed Jaleel Zane v. P. Venkata Murlidhar, AIR 1981 AP 328 , wherein Jeevan Reddy, J, (as his Lordship, then, was), laid down the concept of perpetual lease, in India, by pointing out that that in India, law does not prohibit perpetual lease, but clear and unambiguous language would be required to infer such a lease and if the language is ambiguous, the Court would opt for an interpretation, which would negative the plea of the perpetual lease, because the Court always leans against a perpetual renewal and, hence, where there is a clause for renewal subject to the same terms and conditions, it would be construed as giving a right to renewal for the same period as the period of the original lease, but not a right to second or third renewal and so on unless, of course, the language is clear and unambiguous. (See also Green v. Palmer, reported in 670 ALL E.R., Baker v. Merckel, reported in 1960 All E.R., Secretary of State for India in Council v. A.H. Forbes, reported in 180 Indian Cases (1912, Vol. XVII) and Girindra Chandra v. Kamini Nath AIR 1949 Gau 78 . 32. We have already indicated above that under 2009 Rules, the permission would, ordinarily, be renewed if the application for renewal is accompanied by a certificate issued by the Inspector of Weights & Measures, Government of Meghalaya, as to the accuracy and correctness of the device. In the case at hand, the Petitioner has, admittedly, applied for renewal with requisite certificate from the Inspector of Weights & Measures, Government of Meghalaya, as regards the accuracy and correctness of the device. In such circumstances, was it legally permissible for the State Government to refuse to renew the permission? 33. Before answering the momentous question, posed above, it needs to be borne in mind that the permission, under the scheme of 2009 Rules, is a renewable permission. Ordinarily, therefore, permission shall be renewed. In such circumstances, was it legally permissible for the State Government to refuse to renew the permission? 33. Before answering the momentous question, posed above, it needs to be borne in mind that the permission, under the scheme of 2009 Rules, is a renewable permission. Ordinarily, therefore, permission shall be renewed. This right to seek permission of renewal is, however, not absolute, because the State may, in public interest and for good and valid reasons, refuse to renew the lease and it is this defense, which the State, in the present case, has taken justifying its action not to renew the lease. The State relies, in this regard, on a policy decision, which it has taken in respect of weighbridges, in its meeting held on 02.06.2010. 34. Since at the bottom of the controversy lies the legality and validity of the decision taken on 02.06.2010, it is imperative that this decision is completely and cautiously read. The minutes of the meeting are, therefore, reproduced below: After detailed discussion the following decisions were taken: 1. The concerned D.C.s of West Khasi Hills, West Garo Hills, East Garo Hills and South Garo Hills be advised to investigate the complaint and also summon the complainant, in order to get detailed information on the matter. Cases under the relevant section of law may be registered accordingly. Further, they should also enquire into other aspect of the matter, whether reports of such illegal acts had been received by any Police Station, Outpost, the S.P. and the D.C. 2. All D.C.s in the State to look into the continued existence of any illegal toll gate, check gate and confirm that all illegal toll gates on National Highways and State Highways had been removed. 3. There are a number of check gates alleged to be set up by the District Councils, the Municipalities, the Syiem and others. It should be ensured that only those with proper authority be allowed. D.C & S.P. should be informed that only genuine check gates, which has authority of law be allowed to function. DCA Deptt. would examine the legality or otherwise of various check gates etc. established by the District Council for different purposes. 4. Permission for setting up Check gates on the National Highway should henceforth be given only with recommendation from the State Govt. and not from the Head of Department. DCA Deptt. would examine the legality or otherwise of various check gates etc. established by the District Council for different purposes. 4. Permission for setting up Check gates on the National Highway should henceforth be given only with recommendation from the State Govt. and not from the Head of Department. Before such recommendation by the State Government, the P.W.D. and Transport Departments to jointly decide and make recommendations after taking into consideration the proposal. 5. To start with, an integrated check gate be set up on the exit of the NH-62, where all the Departments connected to the collection of royal/toll/ should jointly collect. 6. Approved weigh bridges by different departments be allowed to continue till end of term only and no extension to be given in view of (5) above. It may be considered whether, for the present, one weigh bridge along NH-62 at a time be recognized, by rotation, where all the concerned Departments should post their officers in the particular weigh bridges for collection of toll etc. 7. There are reports that officers and men of the Police Department remain posted in PS/OP's/Check gates along with Highway for a very long period of time which may lead to developing a vested interest. This may be examined by the Home (P) Deptt. and action taken accordingly. 35. A careful reading of the minutes of the meeting shows that there had been a large number of complaints with regard to illegal collection of money from the truck owners and drivers at the check gates. The meeting, therefore, decided that the Deputy Commissioners of West Khasi Hills, West Garo Hills, East Garo Hills and South Garo Hills shall investigate the complaints and also summon the complainants so as to obtain detailed information on the matter and that cases shall be registered and inquired into against the delinquents and that all the Deputy Commissioners shall continuously examine if there is existence of any illegal toll gate, check gate and confirm that all toll gates and check gates have already been removed. 36. 36. The meeting also recognizes that a number of check gates have been allegedly set up by the District Councils, the Municipalities, the Syiem and others and it should, therefore, be ensured that only those check gates, which have proper authority, be allowed to operate and that the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police should be informed that only genuine check gates, which have the authority of law, be allowed to function. 37. The meeting also resolved that the permission for setting up of check gates on the National Highways, should, henceforth, be given only with recommendation from the State Government and not from the Head of the Department. Before such a recommendation is made by the State Government, the Public Works Department and the Transport Department of the State Government shall jointly decide and make recommendations after taking into consideration the proposal. 38. Most importantly, the meeting resolved that an integrated check gate be set up on the exit of the NH-62, where all the Departments connected with the collection of royalty/toll, should jointly make their respective collections. 39. Crucial for our purpose is, however, Clause 6 of the decision, which resolves that approved weighbridges, by different departments, be allowed to continue till end of their respective terms only and, in view of the reasons discussed above, no extension be given. The meeting also decided to consider the question whether it would be feasible to have only one weighbridge on the National Highway at a time, where all the concerned Departments should post their officers for collection of toll, etc. This shows that an approved weighbridge, such as, the Petitioner's Weighbridge, was to be allowed to continue to operate till the end of the term only and, in view of the Government's decision to set up an integrated check gate, no extension was to be given. 40. What becomes abundantly clear from the above discussion is that the Government received a number of complaints of misuse of check gates and weighbridges, functioning in the State of Meghalaya, where forcible collection of money was being resorted to from the truckers. The Government, therefore, resolved to set up an integrated check gate on the National Highway 62, where all Departments, connected with the collection of royalty, toll etc. should jointly make their collections. 41. The Government, therefore, resolved to set up an integrated check gate on the National Highway 62, where all Departments, connected with the collection of royalty, toll etc. should jointly make their collections. 41. Apart from the fact that a careful reading of the minutes of the meeting, which contain several decisions of the State Government, makes it clear that in order to prevent harassment from extortion of money by, amongst others, those, who operated the weighbridges, the Government decided not to give any further license/permission for operation of weighbridge and it also denied to operate an integrated check gate. 42. It may be pointed out that the Government has brought on record the fact that it has not granted permission for any new weighbridge nor has it renewed permission for existing weighbridges and whatever weighbridges are presently operating, in the State of Meghalaya, the same are alleged to be in operation due to interim orders passed by the Court. 43. What is, now, of immense important to note is that as long as the decision, which the State Government has taken in its meeting, dated 2.6.2010, are found to be in public interest, the State Government's decision cannot be said to be illegal. 44. It is, now, of immense importance to note that it is, indeed, legally permissible for the State Government, even under 2009 Rules, not to renew permission for installation or operation of weighbridge if the decision, as regards non-renewal of permission, is in public interest. In the case at hand, the Petitioner has not been able to show that the decision of the Government not to grant renewal of permission, in its meeting held on 02.06.2010, is against public interest or based on no rational cause. 45. Situated thus, it becomes clear that the Government's decision not to allow permission for either setting up of weighbridge or for renewal of operation of weighbridge is not arbitrary, illegal or unconstitutional. 45. Situated thus, it becomes clear that the Government's decision not to allow permission for either setting up of weighbridge or for renewal of operation of weighbridge is not arbitrary, illegal or unconstitutional. If the public interest demands that the operation of individual weighbridge is stopped, then, such a decision, though may be contrary to the individual interest of a person, such as, the writ Petitioner, such a decision cannot be set at naught merely because the Petitioner has a renewable lease with the Government inasmuch as the renewal of lease is subject to renewal of permission and it is within the ambit of the powers of the Government not to renew permission if renewal of permission is against public interest. 46. One cannot avoid pointing out that the right of a person to seek renewal of permission is subject to supervening public interest. If public interest requires the Government not to renew permission, the Petitioner, as a lessee, cannot demand that the permission be renewed. When the public interest is pitted as against an individual's interest, it is, undoubtedly, the public interest, which must be allowed to prevail. 47. While considering the above aspects of the case, it needs to be also kept in mind that if the Petitioner wants to contend that the allegations, as recorded in the minutes of the meeting, held on 02.06.2010, are incorrect or untrue, then, the dispute, becoming factual in nature, cannot be decided in a writ proceeding and the remedy would lie in instituting appropriate civil suit. 48. In the case at hand, having dispassionately analyzed and considered the matter from all angles, we are of the considered view that the State Government's action is not arbitrary in refusing to renew the permission and since the State Government has the power not to renew, in public interest, a permission for setting up of weighbridge granted under 2009 Rules, we do not find any case for interference with the State Government's decision not to grant any further renewal of permission in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case and when the permission is not granted, no question of renewal of leases would arise. 49. 49. Though what we have indicated above is sufficient to dismiss the writ petition at hand, what may also be pointed out is that in the present case, the agreement, in question, does provide for renewal of lease subject to the condition of making an application for renewal of lease fulfilling the terms and conditions of the lease and payment of renewal fees. This lease, however, though may be perpetual in nature, is subject to the overriding provisions of the 2009 Rules, which, as already indicated above, requires renewal of permission in order to enable a person to install or operate weighbridge. In the absence of renewal of permission, the agreement, in question, cannot be enforced and if the renewal of permission is declined in public interest, the question of enforcing the lease on the ground that the lease is perpetual in nature or issuing a writ, in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Respondents to renew the lease, would not arise at all. 50. It is well-settled, as rightly contended by Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior counsel, that every action of the State and instrumentalities of the State, in exercise of its executive power, must be informed by reason and, in appropriate cases, actions, which are uninformed by reason, may be questioned as arbitrary by resorting to a proceeding under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India. Reliance placed by Mr. Bhattacharyya, in this regard, to the cases of Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. reported in (1990) 3 SCC 752 Radha Krishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar reported in (1977) 3 SCC 457 Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1991) 1 SCC 212 , are not wholly misplaced. As propositions of law, what Mr. Bhattachryya contends, cannot be said to be incorrect; but the discussions, held above, make it abundantly clear that the Government's action, being in public interest, cannot be found fault with. 51. The decision, in Jones v. Swansea City Council reported in 162 All ER : (1989) 3 All E.R., which Mr. Bhattacharyya refers to, holds that merely because a power is exercised on the ground that the power is available, but that no public interest is involved in it and with an intent to injure another, such exercise of power cannot be sustained. Bhattacharyya refers to, holds that merely because a power is exercised on the ground that the power is available, but that no public interest is involved in it and with an intent to injure another, such exercise of power cannot be sustained. The decision, in Swansea City Council (supra), is wholly inapplicable to the case at hand inasmuch as nothing could be pointed out, on behalf of the Petitioner, to show that the Government has acted contrary to public interest or against public interest. 52. The decision, in M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1997) 7 SCC 592 too, which Mr. Bhattacharjee refers to in support of his case, is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as what has been deprecated, in M.P. Oil Extraction (supra), is an act of the Government, when such an act is non-transparent, in denial of fair play and violates the conditions of agreement arbitrarily. There can be no doubt that the Court can force the Government to abide by a contract; but when the contract, such as, the present one, is not enforceable, because of the fact that permission has not been granted and when the decision of the Government not to grant permission or renew permission is supported by reasons and the reasons assigned are actuated by public interest, the contract cannot be enforced. In other words, when there is a conflict between action of the Government, which is based on public interest, on the one hand, and the interest of a private individual in matters of contract, on the other, private interest cannot be allowed to override public interest. 53. Mr. Bhattacharyya is not wrong, when he refers to Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, reported in (1989) 3 SCC 293 , to contend that if a Government policy or action, even in contractual matters, fail to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. The question, however, is whether, in the case at hand, refusal to renew the permission and, consequentially, the lease is unreasonable. 54. Considering the fact that the Government's decision not to renew the permission is based on public interest, the Government's decision cannot be faulted merely on the ground that the contract of lease entered into between the parties is perpetual in nature. 54. Considering the fact that the Government's decision not to renew the permission is based on public interest, the Government's decision cannot be faulted merely on the ground that the contract of lease entered into between the parties is perpetual in nature. The loss, if any, which the Petitioner may suffer as a result of Government's refusal to renew the lease, such a loss may be suitably compensated by way of money. 55. That there can be such a policy decision, as has been taken by the Government, in the present case, in its meeting held on 02.06.2010, there can be really no logical dispute and though the allegations of mala fide and ulterior motive have been made against the Government, the fact of the matter remains that the Petitioner has not been able to bring any thing on record to show that the Government's action is actuated or influenced by mala fide nor has the Petitioner been able to give particulars of such facts, which could make the Court infer that the decision, which the Government has taken on 02.06.2010, is mala fide or with ulterior motive. What deserves to be taken note of is that the decision, which the Government has taken, is not in respect of any particular individual, but in the interest of the public, as a whole, and it is not in respect of only one part of the State, but for whole of the State. When the Government has taken a policy decision, based on public interest, to have an integrated check gate, where all the departments shall have their own respective collections, including, obviously, collection from weighment of vehicles, the Government's decision cannot be said to be bad in law, particularly, when the 2009 Rules make it clear that no one can install or operate a weighbridge without permission from the Government. 56. 56. When the Government was confronted with the allegation of illegal collection by various people on toll gates, check gates, etc., situated not only on the State Highways, but also on the National Highways and when, in such a situation, Government takes a considered decision, in the interest of the general public, to prevent extortion of money by various people, that no further permission for installation or operation of weighbridges would be granted or renewed, this decision of the Government cannot be said to be a decision, which is illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and/or against public interest. When the decision is legal and in public interest, it has to be enforced and the enforcement of the decision would mean that no further permission, as regards installation and/or operation of weighbridges, would be granted or renewed. So long as this decision of the Government of not granting or renewing permission for setting up of a weighbridge is not interfered with, the contract of lease, such as, the present one, which the Petitioner has with the Government, cannot be enforced overriding the Government's decision merely because the contract of lease happens to be perpetual in nature. 57. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions. These writ petitions, therefore, fail and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 58. No costs. Petition dismissed