Judgment T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner-association is praying for quashing the policy/administrative decision of the State respondents as well as the Shillong Municipal Board (for short 'SMB') for shifting the Jail Road Evening Market to the PWD roadside leading to the Jail Road Govt. Boys School by constructing the temporary stalls only for a period of twelve months for the development of the old and dilapidated stalls of the Jail Road Evening Market. 2. Heard Mr. K Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner-association and Mr. ND Chullai, learned Sr. GA assisted by Mr. R Gurung, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 3 & 4, Mr. K Baruah, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr. S Sen, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 3. Factual background:-The petitioner No. 1 is a society registered under the Meghalaya Societies Registration Act, 1983 having its registered office at Jail Road, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya and the society was formed by the residents of Jail Road to look after their general welfare and amelioration of its members and the residents of the area in general. Sometime in the year 2010, the Govt. of Meghalaya, Urban Affairs Department entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 5-M/s. H.M. Cements Pvt. Ltd. for development of the Shillong Municipal Board compound situated at Jail Road, Shillong and in pursuance thereto executed a lease in favour of the respondent No. 5 in respect of the old Shillong Municipal Board Compound under Public Private Partnership (PPP) method. Some of the residents of Jail Road got information that shifting the existing old and dilapidated stalls of Jail Road Evening Market temporarily to PWD roadside leading to the Jail Road Govt. Boys School would cause great disturbance to the general public because of the narrow road and other issues; thereafter, on the objections raised by the members of the petitioner-association on 11.08.2012 there was a joint inspection of the said area where the existing stalls of Jail Road Evening Market were to be shifted temporarily by constructing temporary stalls. In that inspection, the members of the petitioner-association had vehemently objected to the said decision/policy of the State respondents as well as the SMB. 4. In that inspection, the members of the petitioner-association had vehemently objected to the said decision/policy of the State respondents as well as the SMB. 4. After completing the joint inspection on 11.08.2012, the memorandum of inspection was prepared and copy of it is available at Annexure-III to the writ petition. In that memorandum of inspection, it had been recorded that shifting of existing stalls of Jail Road Evening Market will be temporary for a period of 12 months only and on completion of the market, the vendors will be shifted back inside the new complex. The members of the petitioner-association also welcome the proposal. The petitioner-association only wanted to obtain an assurance from the SMB and the Govt. of Meghalaya that the vendors will not be occupying the said roadside permanently after completion of the construction of the market. The memorandum of inspection dated 11.08.2012 reads as follows:- Record note of the Joint-Inspection at Jail Road on the 11th August 2012. Participants: 1. Shri T Lyngwa, Chief Executive Officer SMB 2. Shri M Kharkrang, Superintendent of Police (City) 3. Shri M Marbaniang, Executive Engineer PWD (R), Shillong Central Division. 4. Shri FB Chyne, Executive Engineer, SMB 5. Shri D Diengdoh, SDO PWD (R), Shillong (B) Sub-Division 6. Shri Basu Chakrabarty, Deputy Headman, Jail Road Welfare Committee 7. Shri Montu Choudhury, Jail Road Welfare Committee (* writ petitioner) 8. Shri. Rantu Bhattacharjee, General Secretary, Jail Road Welfare Committee(* writ petitioner) 9. Shri Nishir Chakrabarty, Executive Member, Jail Road Welfare Committee (* writ petitioner) 10. Shri Hirak Chakrabarty, Executive Member, Jail Road Welfare Committee (* writ petitioner) 11. Shri Sukumar Gupta, Executive Member, Jail Road Welfare Committee (* writ petitioner) 12. Shri Pinak Das, Executive Member, Jail Road Welfare Committee (* writ petitioner) 13. Shri Shyamal Dey, Executive Member, Jail Road Welfare Committee (* writ petitioner) The Chief Executive Officer SMB informed the members that the purpose of the joint inspection was to identify and confirm the feasibility of shifting the present Municipal Evening Market to the road-side of the road leading towards jail Road Boys H/S. This has to be done in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the Market along with the ongoing development of the Municipal Complex. The Chief Executive Officer also informed that the shifting will be temporary for a period of 12 months only and on completion of the market, the vendors will be shifted back inside the new complex. The proposed development will also include widening of the road from the market to Jail Road petrol pump. The members representing the locality welcome the proposal and assure the CEO of their cooperation. However, they wanted to obtain an assurance from the SMB and Government that the vendors will not be occupying the place permanently after the completion of the construction of the market, to which the CEO assured them that the structures that will be constructed on the roadside during the temporary relocation, will be demolished as soon as the new market complex is completed. The representatives of the locality also requested that at least a urinal should be provided in the temporary market for the convenience of the vendors and to avoid haphazard committing of nuisance. The SP (City), and the EE PWD requested the temporary stalls be so constructed that there should not be encroachment on the road and space between the stall and the road should be maintained for the convenience of the shoppers as well as the traffic. (T Lyngwa) Chief Executive Officer Shillong Municipal Board. 5. After the said joint inspection on 11.08.2012, the Chief Executive Officer, SMB issued letter dated 16.08.2012 to the vendors as well as to the shoppers that the SMB is proposed to redevelop the Jail Road Evening Market with modern amenities to improve the convenience of the vendors as well as the shoppers. The proposed development will be completed in 12 months time. One of the said letters dated 16.08.2012 issued to the vendors as well as shopkeepers of Jail Road Evening Market (Annexure-IV to the writ petition) is quoted hereunder:- Office of the SHILLONG MUNICIPAL BOARD Bishop Cotton Road, Shillong-793001, Meghalaya http://smb.gov.in. No. SMB/L/102/2012-13/4 Dated Shillong, the 16th August, 2012. To, Shri./Smt._______ Jail Road Sub: Development of the fish market at Jail Road. Sir/Madam, In inviting a reference to the subject cited above, I am to inform you that the SMB is proposing to redevelop the Jail Road Evening Market with modern amenities to improve the convenience of the vendors as well as the shoppers. The proposed development will be completed in 12 months time. Sir/Madam, In inviting a reference to the subject cited above, I am to inform you that the SMB is proposing to redevelop the Jail Road Evening Market with modern amenities to improve the convenience of the vendors as well as the shoppers. The proposed development will be completed in 12 months time. You are therefore required to shift temporarily for the period of 12 months to make-shift stall which is provided to you at a place located adjacent to the existing stalls. On completion, you will be shifted back to the new market. Your cooperation is solicited. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Chief Executive Officer, Shillong Municipal Board. 6. On 07.09.2012, there was again a meeting of the residents of Jail Road, members of the petitioner-association, officials of the Govt. and officials of the SMB presided by the Hon'ble Minister of Urban Affairs on the issue pertaining to the redevelopment of the Jail Road Municipal Market. In that meeting, the major concerns of the residents of Jail Road as well as the members of the petitioner-association were that: a. The vendors who are to be relocated at the road-side may not shift back to the re-developed market after completion. b. The road being apparently narrow will be very congested after the vendors are temporarily located there in. c. The vehicles of the residents parked in the road-side where the vendors are proposed to be shifted will be greatly disturbed. The said major concerns of the members of the petitioner-association and the residents of Jail Road were considered at threadbare and the Hon'ble Minister of Urban Affairs made an assurance to the members of the locality that each vendor will be made to undertake formally that on completion of the new market, they will shift back from their temporary space and the Hon'ble Minister further assured that on completion of new market, all make-shift stalls will be demolished and the roadside will be cleared. After such assurance by the Hon'ble Minister of Urban Affairs, the members of the locality requested the department to start the work after Puja celebration to which the Minister replied the same will be examined. The copy of the proceedings of meeting held on 07.09.2012 (Annexure-VI to the writ petition) reads as follows:- Proceedings of the meeting on the issues pertaining to the re-development of the Jail Road Municipal Market held on the 7th September, 2012 Members Present: 1. The copy of the proceedings of meeting held on 07.09.2012 (Annexure-VI to the writ petition) reads as follows:- Proceedings of the meeting on the issues pertaining to the re-development of the Jail Road Municipal Market held on the 7th September, 2012 Members Present: 1. Smti MA Lyngdoh, Minister Urban Affairs. 2. Shri AL Hek, Minister Water Resources 3. Shri BK Panda, Director Urban Affairs 4. Shri T Lyngwa, Chief Executive Officer, Shillong Municipal Board 5. Shri FB Chyne, Executive Engineer, SMB 6. Shri DJ Diengdoh, SDO PWD (R) 7. Smti Cherry Shadap DSP (City) Shillong 8. Shri Subir Sangma Inspector of Police, I/C Sadar PS 9. Shri SK Dhar, Headman, Jail Road Welfare Committee (writ petitioner) 10. N Bhattacharjee, General Secretary, Jail Road (writ petitioner) 11. H Chakrabarty, EM, Jail Road (writ petitioner) 12. Pinaky Das, Secretary, Jail Road (writ petitioner) The meeting was chaired by Smti MA Lyngdoh, Hon'ble Minister Urban Affairs who welcome the members. The purpose of the meeting was to sort out the issues raised by the locality of Jail Road to the proposed re-development of the Jail Road Municipal Market and the proposed shifting of the vendors to the temporary site on the road side leading towards the Jail Road Boys' School. The SMB gave a brief presentation of the proposal, while also informing that the re-development shall take about 12 months to complete and that on completion the Jail Road junction will be beautified and the roads will be widened with road-side parking facility. The members representing the locality expressed these following major concerns: a. The vendors who are to be relocated at the road-side may not shift back to the re-developed market after completion. b. The road being apparently narrow will be very congested after the vendors are temporarily located there in. c. The vehicles of the residents who are parked in the road-side where the vendors are proposed to be shifted will be greatly disturbed. The Hon'ble Minister Urban Affairs, assured the members of the locality that, each vendor will be made to undertake formally, that on completion of the new market, they will shift back from their temporary space. She also assured that on completion of the shifting all the makeshift stalls will be demolished and the road-side will be cleared. She also informed that the site has been chosen after having been exhausted of all other possible sites. She also assured that on completion of the shifting all the makeshift stalls will be demolished and the road-side will be cleared. She also informed that the site has been chosen after having been exhausted of all other possible sites. As informed by the SDO, representing the PWD, the road is about seven meters wide from the edge of the Guard Wall to the drain and therefore it is wide enough for two vehicles to pass through even with the temporary fish and vegetable stall on the side. However, to put all apprehensions to rest, the Hon'ble Minister proposed that only two stall will be constructed first with barricades on the edge of the road and will be inspected jointly by all members before the rest are to be constructed. With regards to the vehicles of the residents which are parked overnight on the road-side the Minister informs the members that those vehicle owners can avail the facility of overnight parking from MUDA. The members of the locality also request the department to start the works after the Puja Celebrations, to which the Minister replied that the same will be examined. The members of the locality having been clarified of the position of the proposed development, assured the SMB and the Department of Urban Affairs of their cooperation in implementation of this project. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks from the chair. (Smti. MA Lyngdoh) Minister Urban Affairs Meghalaya 7. The members of the petitioner-association and the residents of the locality, who had participated in the said two joint meetings, raised objections that the proposed structures will cause great convenience to the residents and also hardly two small vehicles can pass easily. By constructing stalls on the roadside, the respondents are showing complete lack of application of mind and to make matters worse are not even ready to pay heed to the objections being raised by the petitioner-association who will ultimately suffer. The petitioner-association further stated that in all actions of the State, the safety and security of the citizens should be of paramount importance. Such being the situation, the said policy decision of the Govt. to shift the stalls temporarily to PWD roadside leading to the Jail Road Govt. Boys School is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. The State respondents through the respondent No. 3-Commissioner & Secretary to the Urban Affairs Department, Govt. Such being the situation, the said policy decision of the Govt. to shift the stalls temporarily to PWD roadside leading to the Jail Road Govt. Boys School is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. The State respondents through the respondent No. 3-Commissioner & Secretary to the Urban Affairs Department, Govt. of Meghalaya filed affidavit-in-opposition wherein, it is stated that the Govt. of Meghalaya and its Urban Affairs & Municipal Department with a view to redeveloping the Jail Road Evening Market with modern amenities to improve the convenience of the vendors as well as the shoppers had decided to shift the existing old and dilapidated stalls temporarily for a period of 12 months to make-shift stalls which are to be provided by the SMB at a place located adjacent to the existing stalls and on such completion, the shoppers shall be shifted back to the new market. The respondent No. 3 in his affidavit-in-opposition further stated that the decision for shifting temporarily the Jail Road Evening Market at Jail Road to a nearby roadside was not an unilateral decision of the SMB, but was taken after consultation with the stakeholders which include the public representative of Pynthorumkhrah as well as the members of the petitioner-association. The members of the Committee had given their consent in the meeting. The members of the petitioner-association are not the owners or tenants of the PWD roadside land and as such, there is no reasonable ground for the petitioner-association to oppose the decision of the Govt. for development of the Jail Road Evening Market and also to beautify the area and widen the Jail Road. The PWD roadside where the stalls to be constructed temporarily for developing the Jail Road Evening Market is used as parking of vehicles. The members of the petitioner-association had not expressed any objection against the unauthorized parking in the area. The temporary stalls so constructed by the SMB are in no circumstances interfering with the flow of traffic on the road. The stalls are being constructed on the side of the road which was used as a parking space of the vehicles most of which belong to the shopkeepers/vendors of Police Bazar area, who wish to avoid parking their vehicles in the designated parking lots to avail free parking. The stalls are being constructed on the side of the road which was used as a parking space of the vehicles most of which belong to the shopkeepers/vendors of Police Bazar area, who wish to avoid parking their vehicles in the designated parking lots to avail free parking. The Municipal Market traditionally known as the Jail Road Evening Market is operational only after 5:00 PM in the evening and the temporary market will not in any way affect the schools as the activities in the market functions outside the school hours besides it is located at a distance of about 200 metres away from the school. The said policy decision of the Govt. for re-developing the Jail Road Evening Market is for the benefits of the general public and beautification of the area. 9. This Court also passed an order dated 31.07.2013 in the present writ petition directing the petitioner-association, the authorities of SMB and the Meghalaya Urban Development Agency, Shillong to submit a report as to whether there is a suitable place other than Jail Road where the make-shift stalls could be constructed temporarily for a period of 12 months. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the members of the petitioner-association, authorities of the SMB and the Meghalaya Urban Development Agency inspected the spot on 10.08.2013 and submitted a report that there is no alternative suitable place for shifting the market temporarily by constructing make-shift stalls and the PWD roadside leading to the Jail Road Boys School where the temporary stalls are already started construction is the most suitable site and as it is temporary measures, no inconvenience would be caused to the residents of Jail Road. The inspection report dated 10.08.2013 was submitted by the Chief Executive Officer, SMB along with an affidavit. The proceedings of the joint inspection held on 10.08.2013 in connection with the present case i.e. WP(C) No. 327/2013 reads as follows:- Proceedings of The Joint Inspection Held at Jail Road on 10/8/2013 in Connection with Case No. WP(C) No. (SH)327/2013. List of participants: As per annexure-A The joint inspection started at 9:35 AM where representatives of the Jail Road Welfare Committee and government officials including the CEO, Shillong Municipal Board inspected the 1. The Existing evening market, 2. The constructed temporary stalls, and 3. The site proposed by the Jail Road Welfare Committee (JWC). List of participants: As per annexure-A The joint inspection started at 9:35 AM where representatives of the Jail Road Welfare Committee and government officials including the CEO, Shillong Municipal Board inspected the 1. The Existing evening market, 2. The constructed temporary stalls, and 3. The site proposed by the Jail Road Welfare Committee (JWC). The Jail Road Welfare Committee (JWC) insisted that partly some of the stalls can be accommodated inside the complex which is under construction and some stalls can be accommodated at the site No. 3 located on the stretch between the Petrol Pump and the Bangiya Sahitiya Parishad. The stretch between the petrol Pump and the Bangiya Sahitiya Parishad was measured and found that the stretch of roadside available for putting up stalls is not adequate to accommodate all the 31 stalls. The CEO SMB also pointed out that since the construction work of the complex is under progress, it is not safe for shopkeepers and the general public to enter the construction site. The SP Traffic and the EE PWD also do not agree to put any stalls on the roadside land proposed by the JWC stating that the flow of traffic is too heavy at the area as it is a major thoroughfare unlike the site No. 2 which leads to a dead end. Further heavy vehicles also ply on the road at the site No. 3 and to put a market in the site will be a big risk to the general public. Submitted. Chief Executive Officer Shillong Municipal Board. 10. In Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of India: (1984) 3 SCC 465 held that: 45. This Court held that expertise in public and political, national and international economy is necessary, when one may engage in the making or in the criticism of an import policy. Obviously, courts do not possess the expertise and are consequently, incompetent to pass judgments on the appropriateness or the adequacy of a particular import policy. It is fairly settled that it is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. It is fairly settled that it is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of the petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. The Apex Court in Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India & Ors: (2009) 7 SCC 561 held that: 169. It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of the petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. Wisdom and advisability of economic policy are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. In matters relating to economic issues the Government has, while taking a decision, right to "trial and error" as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within the limits of the authority. For testing the correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is Parliament and not the courts. 11. The Apex Court also reiterated the ratio laid down in Liberty Oil Mills case (Supra) and Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam's case (Supra) in Arun Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors: : (2013) 7 SCC 1 Paras 43, 44, 45, & 46 of the SCC in Arun Kumar Agarwal's case (Supra) read as follows:- 43. In Metropolis Theatre Co. v. Chicago: 57 L Ed 730: 228 US 61 (1913) the Supreme Court of the United States held as follows: (L Ed p. 734) ....... The problems of Government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodation, illogical, if may be, and unscientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily expressed. What is best is not always discernible; the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of Government are not subject to our judicial review. It is only its palpably arbitrary exercises which can be declared void. .... 44. But even such criticism should not be hastily expressed. What is best is not always discernible; the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of Government are not subject to our judicial review. It is only its palpably arbitrary exercises which can be declared void. .... 44. In LIC v. Escorts Ltd: (1986) 1 SCC 264 , this Court held that: (SCC p. 344, para 102) 102. .... The Court will not debate academic matters or concern itself with intricacies of trade and commerce. The Court held that: (SCC p. 344, para 102) 102. .... When the State or an instrumentality of the State ventures into corporate world and purchases the shares of a company, it assumes to itself the ordinary role of a shareholder, and dons the robes of a shareholder, with all the rights available to such a shareholder. There is no reason why the State as a shareholder should be expected to state its reasons when it seeks to change the management, by a resolution of the company, like any other shareholder. 45. In Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of India: (2009) 7 SCC 561 this Court held that expertise in public and political, national and international economy is necessary, when one engage in the making or in the criticism of an import policy. Obviously, courts do not possess the expertise and are consequently, incompetent to pass judgments on the appropriateness or the adequacy of a particular import policy. 46. In Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India & Ors: : (2009) 7 SCC 561 this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 605, para 169) 169. It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of the petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. Wisdom and advisability of economic policy are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. In matters relating to economic issues the Government has, while taking a decision, right to "trial and error" as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within the limits of the authority. Wisdom and advisability of economic policy are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. In matters relating to economic issues the Government has, while taking a decision, right to "trial and error" as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within the limits of the authority. For testing the correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is Parliament and not the courts. 12. The Apex Court in Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors: (2013) 9 SCC 659 held that: 49. The argument of the appellant that giving of colour TVs, laptops, mixer-grinder, etc. on the basis of the manifesto of the party that forms the Government is not an expense for a public purpose. ... 68. As a result, we are not inclined to agree with the argument of the appellant that giving of colour TVs, laptops, mixer-grinders, etc. by the Government after adhering to due process is not an expense for public purpose. Judicial interference is permissible when the action of the Government is unconstitutional and not when such action is not wise or that the extent of expenditure is not for the good of the State. We are of the view that all such questions must be debated and decided in the legislature and not in the court. 13. The Apex Court in Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi: 2006 AIR SCW 3601 held that: 10. While exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not the appellate authority and the Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in matter of policy or to sermonize any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of the Legislature or the executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory power. (See Ashif Hamid v. State of J & K AIR 1989 SC 1899 ), Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1277 ). The scope of judicial enquiry is confined to the question whether the decision taken by the Government is against any statutory provisions or is violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, the position is that even if the decision taken by the Government does not appear to be agreeable to the Court it cannot interfere. 11. Thus, the position is that even if the decision taken by the Government does not appear to be agreeable to the Court it cannot interfere. 11. The correctness of the reasons which prompted the government in decision making, taking one course of action instead of another is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the Court is not the appropriate forum for such investigation. 12. The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can adopt which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from different angles. In matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the government so long as the infringement of fundamental right is not shown courts will have no occasion to interfere and the Court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the Court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government. 13. The Court should constantly remind itself of what the supreme Court of the United States said in Metropolis Theatre Company v. City of Chicago (1912) 57 L Ed 730. "The problems of Government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations, illogical it may be, and unscientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily expressed. What is the best is not always discernible, the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of government are not subject to our judicial review. [See: State of Orissa and others v. Gopinath Dash and Others: (2005) 13 SCC 495 ]. 14. Keeping in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases discussed above, this Court is not invoking its jurisdiction for judicial review for accepting the criticism of the said policy decision of the Govt. of Meghalaya as well as the SMB for shifting the old and dilapidated stalls of Jail Road Evening Market temporarily to the PWD roadside leading to the Jail Road Govt. of Meghalaya as well as the SMB for shifting the old and dilapidated stalls of Jail Road Evening Market temporarily to the PWD roadside leading to the Jail Road Govt. Boys School by constructing make-shift stalls only for a period of 12 months for redeveloping the Jail Road Evening Market for the convenience of the public at large and further it is not within the domain of the court to embark upon an enquiry as to whether the particular policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evoked and further this Court is not inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of the petitioner-association without cogent and rational grounds that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 16. Taking into consideration of the long delay in redeveloping the Jail Road Evening Market because of the filing of the present unscrupulous writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that an exemplary cost is required to be imposed to the petitioner-association, whose members also participated in the said two joint inspections. Accordingly, a cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only imposed to the petitioner-association. The petitioner-association i.e. the petitioners No. 1 & 2 shall deposit the cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only in the Registry of this Court within a period of 20 (twenty) days from the date of passing this judgment and order and the Registry in its turn shall deposit the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only to one of the Old Age Homes recognized by the Govt. of Meghalaya as expeditiously as possible. The Registry is directed to furnish the copy of this judgment and order to the parties in the course of the day.