13.08.2025 vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By Its on 13 August, 2025

Meghalaya High Court

Date Of Decision: 13.08.2025 vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By Its on 13 August, 2025

Author: H. S. Thangkhiew

Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew

                                                         2025:MLHC:723




Serial No. 04
Regular List
                  HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                        AT SHILLONG

WP(C) No. 297 of 2025
                                       Date of Decision: 13.08.2025

M/s Merlin Consultancy
Having its office at DSM-144, First Floor, DLF Tower,
Shivaji Marg, New Delhi-110015, represented herein by its partner,
Shri Ajit Jaiswal,
S/o Shri Brij Bihari Jaiswal,
R/o 27-28 Duble Story, 3rd Floor, Near Big Apple,
New Rajinder Nagar, Central Delhi,
Delhi-110060.                                   .... Petitioner(s)

      Versus

1. State of Meghalaya represented by its
   Secretary Department of Fisheries,
   Government of Meghalaya,
   Shillong-793003.

2. The Director of Fisheries,
   Directorate of Fisheries, Government of Meghalaya,
   Fish Dale Farm, Cleve Colony,
   Shillong-793003.                        ..... Respondent(s)

3. Union of India represented by its
   Secretary to the Government of India,
   Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and
   Dairying Department of Fisheries, Chanderlok Building,
   1st Floor, 36 Janpat, New Delhi
                                      .... Proforma Respondent(s)




                                                           Page 1 of 5
                                                            2025:MLHC:723




_______________________________________________________
Coram:
          Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge


Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s)      : Mr. K. Paul, Sr. Adv. with
                             Mr. S. Chanda, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)      : Mr. A.S. Dey, GA (For R 1&2)
                             Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with
                             Ms. M. Myrchiang, Adv. (For R 3)

i)    Whether approved for reporting in                   Yes/No
      Law journals etc.:

ii)   Whether approved for publication
      in press:                          Yes/No
                 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. Heard Mr. K. Paul, learned Senior counsel assisted by

Mr. S. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Also heard Mr. A.S. Dey, learned GA for the respondents

Nos. 1 & 2 and Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. M.

Myrchiang, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

3. The grievance of the writ petitioner as projected, is with

the non-payment of dues amounting to Rs. 2,65,50,000/- (Rupees Two

Crores Sixty-Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand) only, by the State

Page 2 of 5
2025:MLHC:723

respondents which is stated to be on account of preparing a Detailed

Project Report (DPR) for a project known as Meghalaya Oceanarium,

at the Fish Dale Farm (Fishery Complex).

4. Mr. A.S. Dey, learned GA for the respondents Nos. 1 & 2,

at the outset however, has raised a question of maintainability of the

writ petition on the ground that the matter is in the realm of private

law and does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of

the powers under Article-226 of the Constitution. He further submits

that the writ petition is also premature, in view of the fact that State

respondents are still awaiting further instructions with regard to the

change in the scope and design of the project. He therefore, prays that

the matter be closed at this stage itself.

5. Mr. K. Paul, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.

Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner in response to the Expression of Interest (EOI) dated

29.11.2021, for consultation/preparation of DPR for Re-Development

of Fish Dale Farm (Fishery Complex), had bid for the same and on its

acceptance thereof, the work order was issued in its favour on

18.07.2022. Though no formal agreement was signed, he submits the

petitioner had commenced the works, and as required had submitted a

Page 3 of 5
2025:MLHC:723

DPR. He further submits that for reasons unknown, except that there

was an alteration in the scope of the work, the dues have not been

cleared, which has prompted the petitioner to approach this Court by

this application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. On hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties and on examination of the materials as placed, it appears that

the matter is in the nature of a commercial dispute, and even in the

absence of an agreement, perhaps the remedy would lie before an

alternate forum. It is also noted from the materials on record that the

project in question, is in the stage of restructuring of the DPR, and

also, that it is not a case of the petitioner being ousted from the project

itself. However, it appears that as there has been a request from the

Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department

that the State respondents submit a restructured proposal in

accordance with the CSS-Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana

guidelines, the project has been held up.

7. In the considered view of this Court, without going into the

merits of the case, no order, or any adjudication is deemed necessary

at this stage, only that the State respondents, are expected to proceed

Page 4 of 5
2025:MLHC:723

accordingly as per the directions contained in the letter dated

09.01.2023, issued by the said Ministry.

8. With the above noted observations, the matter stands

closed and is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Meghalaya
13.08.2025
“V. Lyndem-PS”

Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5
Digitally signed by
VALENTINO LYNDEM
Date: 2025.08.13 17:08:50 IST