AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of this writ petition, the petitioners, said to be the Tourist Taxi Association at Shillong and its General Secretary, seek to question the
order dated 27.10.2017 as passed by the Chief Executive Officer [''CEO''], Shillong Municipal Board, Shillong in disposal of the representation
dated 06.07.2017, that was ordered to be decided by this Court in the order dated 11.10.2017 as passed in WP (C) No.258 of 2017.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to
entertain this writ petition.
It is noticed that when the CEO took up the representation for consideration, counter representation/s were made by the other persons claiming
themselves to be the Working Chairman and Secretary of the Working Committee of the petitioner Association. The CEO, in the given set of
circumstances, disposed of the representation/s with the following observations and directions:-
Now, therefore in consideration of the prayer made by the General Secretary, KHTTA as well as the representation of the working committee, it
is hereby directed that the said office room which was taken on rent by the KHTTA shall continue to be in the sole control of the Shillong
Municipal Board who is the owner of the parking lot and all the infrastructure therein. The authorized parking fees collector appointed by the SMB
shall be the caretaker of the said office room and shall allow the drivers of tourist Cabs which are parked in the parking lot to use it as a rest room.
The room will remain open from 6AM to 5PM daily.
The Khasi Hills Tourist Taxi Association is at liberty to make a fresh representation for permission to occupy and use the room for their office as
and when all their internal disputes are certified to have been resolved.
On the queries of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the room in question was given on lease to the petitioner Association
by the Municipal Board. Copy of any such lease deed has not been placed on record and it is difficult to find if the lease still subsists. In any case,
this Court is clearly of the view that if the petitioners have any legal grievance as regards the alleged rights on the basis of the alleged lease, they are
free to take recourse of appropriate regular remedies in accordance with law.
In the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the CEO has disposed of the representations/s in accordance with law and
there is no reason to entertain this matter in the writ jurisdiction over again.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands rejected.