Judgment T. Nandakumar Singh, J. Heard Mrs. S.K. Nongrum, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 - 7, 10, 11, 12 & 13, Mr. S.P. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 8, Mr. K. Buruah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 9 and Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 14. 2. The prayer sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to allot a permanent space/parking space to the petitioner-association. 3. The members of the petitioner association are plying commercial vehicles viz., Tata Sumo, Indica, as well as other diesel driven vehicles. The members of the petitioner-association were originally allotted Shillong Municipal Board parking lot adjacent to the Shillong Club (opposite to State Bank of India), Kachari Road, Shillong and they were plying their vehicles from that stand. 4. At the end of the year 2010, the members of the petitioners' association were asked to shift from that parking lot to the Polo Parking Lot. It is also stated that the petitioner-association was affiliated to Meghalaya Indica (D), Tourist Taxi Driver's Welfare Union, Meghalaya Indica (D) Tourist Taxi association and the Khasi Hills Tata Sumo Tourist Taxi Drivers Association. The members of the petitioner-association had vacated their original parking stand/parking lot adjacent to Shillong Club and parked their vehicles at the parking space i.e. Polo Parking Lot. It is stated that much inconvenience had been caused to the members of the petitioner association at the time of parking their commercial vehicles at the said parking lot i.e. Polo Parking Lot. 5. On further enquiry, the petitioner-association came to know that the parking lot at Polo had been under the control, management and supervision of Shillong Recreation Ground Trust and at no point of time, the State respondents had any interaction with the said Trust for granting permission to the members of the petitioner association to use the parking lot as their stand (Polo Parking Lot). 6. 6. It is also stated that due to non-allotment of permanent stand or parking lot, the members of the petitioner association are plying their commercial vehicles from the stand of the Shillong Municipal Board near Anjalee Cinema Hall leased out to the other private associations and for using that parking lot near Anjalee Cinema Hall, the members of the petitioner association had to pay exorbitant parking fee as well as service charges to the private association to whom the said parking lot had been allotted. 7. Because of the non-availability of permanent parking lot or suitable parking lot, the members of the petitioner association are left to the mercy of the other private associations to whom the permanent parking lot had been granted by the respondent authorities. It is further case of the petitioner-association that under section 117 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the State Government or any authority authorized in this behalf by the State Government may, in consultation with the local authority having jurisdiction in the area concerned, determine places at which motor vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time, and may determine the places at which public service vehicles may stop for a longer time than it necessary for the taking up and setting down of passengers and as such, the State Govt. or any authority is duty bound to determine places at which motor vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time, and may determine the places at which public service vehicles may stop for a longer time than it necessary for the taking up and setting down of passengers. 8. Mrs. S.K. Nongrum, learned counsel by referring to the pleadings of the petitioner-association in the present writ petition contended that the petitioner-association at least needs an office so as to enable the members of the petitioner association may know where the other members are plying their vehicles. This is a must for the members of the petitioner-association so that they may help each other in the event of any untoward incident. 9. Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the State respondent is not concerned with the plot required for running an office of the petitioner- association. This is a must for the members of the petitioner-association so that they may help each other in the event of any untoward incident. 9. Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the State respondent is not concerned with the plot required for running an office of the petitioner- association. However, this court is not expressing any opinion but the State Government shall look into this matter for the welfare of the members of the petitioner association. 10. It the further case of the petitioner-association that the State respondent had already allotted parking lot to the other private associations. It is also stated in the writ petition that the petitioner-association had filed a number of representations, some of which are at Annexures - VII and VIII to the writ petition, to the different authorities for granting or for allotting parking lot to the petitioner-association so that the members of the petitioners association may not be subjected to exorbitant parking fee as well as service charges by the private associations to whom the State respondent had allotted the parking lot and also the members of the petitioner-association may run their business of plying tourist taxis i.e. Tata Sumo, Indica and other diesel driven vehicles from the parking lot allotted to the petitioner-association. It is further case of the petitioner-association that none of the representations mentioned above filed by the petitioner- association had been considered and disposed of by the respondent authorities or in other words, the said representations are still pending with the authority concerned. 11. In the above factual backdrop, this writ petition is disposed by directing the petitioner-association to file afresh representation more fully, mentioning their grievances and difficulties faced by them because of non-availability of parking lot for the members of the petitioner- association to the Principal Secretary/Commissioner & Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Meghalaya within a period of 2 (two) weeks and the respondent on receipt of the representation shall dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the representation and if necessary, the authority may give an opportunity of hearing to the members of the petitioner association. 12. It is made clear that any order passed by the authority concerned on the representation so filed by the petitioner- association shall be communicated to the petitioner-association very promptly. Mr. 12. It is made clear that any order passed by the authority concerned on the representation so filed by the petitioner- association shall be communicated to the petitioner-association very promptly. Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents contended that the petitioner-association may be directed to submit the numbers and particulars of the vehicles of the petitioner-association in the representation; and accordingly, the petitioner-association is directed to mention the numbers and particulars of vehicles in the said representation. 13. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition is disposed of. 14. It is made clear that the interim order dated 30.08.2012 passed in the present writ petition stands vacated.