Meghalaya High Court
Smti. Beronika Syiemlieh vs State Of Meghalaya on 2 July, 2025
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
2025:MLHC:575
Serial No. 25
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 67 of 2024 Date of Decision: 02.07.2025
1.Smti. Beronika Syiemlieh
W/o (L) Debashish Bhattacharjee
2.Shri. Tamal Kumar Bhattacharjee
S/o (L) Tarapada Bhattacharjee
3.Smti. Monideepa Sen
W/o (L) Shekhar Bhattacharjee
4.Shri. Surajit Choudhury
S/o (L) B.K. Choudhury
5.Smti. Dipti Paul
Joint Secretary
Rilbong L.P. School
6.Shri. Indranil Bhattacharjee
Secretary
Rilbong P.N. Chaudhuri Higher
Secondary School
7.Shri. Debo Prashad Ghosh
S/o (L) Pabitra Kumar Ghosh
8.Shri. Sushanta Choudhury
S/o (L) Sisir K. Choudhury
9.Shri. Arup Dey Purkayastha
S/o (L) B. Dey Purkayastha
1
2025:MLHC:575
10.Smti. Bijoylaxmi Dutta
W/o (L) Bulan Dutta
11.Smti. Sumona Bhattacharjee
D/o (L) S.K. Bhattacharjee :::Petitioners
-Vs-
1.State of Meghalaya
Represented by the Secretary and
Commissioner, Road and Transport
Department, Shillong, Meghalaya
2.The Under Secretary (Works)
Government of Meghalaya
Public Works (R&B)
Department, Shillong
3.The Chief Engineer (NH)
PWD (Roads), Meghalaya, Shillong
4.The Executive Engineer (Roads), Public
Works Department Central Division
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya
5.The Secretary, Public Works Department
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya
6.The Chief Engineer Officer, Shillong
Municipal Board, East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya :::Respondents
2
2025:MLHC:575
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Paul, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. K. Decruse, Adv.
Mr. S. Chanda, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. T. Yangi. B, AAG with
Ms. Z.E.Nongkynrih, GA(For R 1-5)
Mr. Philemon Nongbri, Adv.(ForR 6)
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. The petitioners are before this Court with a prayer for directions to
stop the respondent authorities from engaging in the construction and
widening of the PWD approach road connecting Umshyrpi Bridge to
Rilbong, Shillong, on the ground that on the approach road, two schools are
situated and construction of a regular motorable road in such an area will
pose a threat to the safety of the residents of the area and to the students of
these two schools.
3
2025:MLHC:575
2. Mr. K. Paul, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. K. Decruse,
learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the
stakeholders and the residents of the area have objected to the construction
of the approach road, and have voiced their concerns as to the adverse
impact it would have on the residents and others, the State respondents are
continuing with the construction. He further submits that though no private
land is being parted with in the construction of the road, the same which
would be of a maximum width of only 5.2 metres, would be extremely
narrow and would pose a serious danger to the school children and
residents, if vehicles ply on the same. He has also submitted that in the
construction of the road, the respondents had not conducted a social impact
assessment, as to the feasibility of the widening of the road to make it
motorable. As such, he prays that the proposed road construction be
suspended and stopped, in view of the concerns as expressed by the
residents.
3. Mrs. T. Yangi. B, learned AAG assisted by Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih,
learned GA for the State respondents No. 1-5 has submitted that the
construction is for the benefit of all and in public interest, as by the
widening of the path, a motorable road would be created easing the
congestion in the area. She further submits that this matter had already
4
2025:MLHC:575
been agitated before this Court by way of WP(C) No. 102 of 2022, by the
same petitioners, wherein this Court by order dated 01.04.2022, taking
cognizance of the issue, and of a joint site inspection, which had been
conducted on 27.02.2021, had closed the matter. She therefore submits that
the matter having been decided in the earlier writ petition, the instant writ
petition on the same issue cannot be entertained.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and also on the
perusal of the records, especially in the earlier proceedings that has been
brought before this Court by way of WP(C) No. 102 of 2022, this Court
notes that the present writ petition is only directed against the safety issues
that will be faced by the residents and school children who attend the two
schools in the vicinity namely Rilbong L.P. School and Rilbong P.N.
Chaudhuri Higher Secondary School. At this juncture, it would be
expedient to refer to the earlier order passed by this Court dated
01.04.2022, in WP(C) No. 102 of 2022, which for the sake of convenience
is reproduced hereinbelow:
5
2025:MLHC:575
Serial No.09
Supp. ListHIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONGWP(C). No. 102 of 2022
5.
6.
7.
Date of Order :01.04.2022
Smti. Beronika Syiemlieh & 8 Ors. Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
8.
9.
Coram:
10.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s): Ms. K.Decruse, Adv. vice
Mr. K.Paul, Sr. Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. N.D.Chullai, AAG with
Ms. Z.E.Nongkynrih, GA.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
_____________________________________________________________
ORAL
1. Mr. N.D.Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Ms.
Z.E.Nongkynrih, learned GA has drawn the attention of this Court to
the affidavit dated 31-03-2022 and more particularly, paragraph 6
wherein it has been stated that the land of the petitioners will not be
6
2025:MLHC:575necessary for the widening process. Paragraph 6 which is relevant is
reproduced herein below:
“That in response to paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Writ
Petition, the answering deponent states that after receipt of the
objection with regard to the widening of the road at Rilbong, a
detailed report was sought for from the Executive Engineer, P.W.D.
(Roads), Shillong Central Division, Shillong vide Letter No.
PW/CE/RD/171/2020/24, dated 08-03-2021.
As per the report which was prepared and submitted vide letter
No. TB/SCD/53/2019-20/425, dated 15-04-2021, it is stated that the
project was initiated by the Department to ease the traffic congestion
at Rhino and Anjalee Petrol Pump junction by providing an
alternative short exit route for the residents of Rilbong and Kench’s
Trace in particular and Greater Laban Area as a whole connecting
Rilbong (near Shillong Times Office) to Rilbong Point (National
Highway) by construction of an RCC Bridge over the Umshyrpi river
and widening of the existing approach footpath leading to the Bridge.
Furthermore, it has also been stated that the onus with regard
to garnering the donation or gifting of land from the residents in
order to widen the existing footpath is on the Dorbar Shnong.
However, due to communication gap between the Dorbar Shnong and
the Department, the intention of easing the traffic congestion which is
choking the city to a standstill was not communicated to the residents
and may have resulted in the misunderstanding and the subsequent
objection to the said widening of the road.
It is humbly submitted that taking cognizance to solve the issue,
a joint site inspection was carried out on 27-02-2021 with officials of
the department and the residents of the area. During the inspection,
due measurement of the existing footpath alongwith the side drains to
be covered was carried out and the total available width of the
existing footpath was found to range from 3.00 m to 5.20 m.
Thereafter, all the members present at the inspection unanimously felt
that the aforementioned width of the road on completion will be
sufficient for a one-way traffic without taking any extra land from the
land owners on either side of the existing footpath”.
2. In view of the statement made on affidavit by the state
respondents, at this stage, nothing survives for consideration by this
7
2025:MLHC:575
Court. However, petitioners are at liberty to agitate in case fresh
cause of action arises.
3. Accordingly, writ petition is closed and stands disposed of.
Judge
11. A perusal of the above quoted order, will reflect that the matter had
been examined by way of a joint site inspection conducted on 27.02.2021,
wherein it appears that the decision to construct the road was settled by
consensus. In the instant writ petition, though liberty had been given by this
Court vide the above-mentioned order to agitate in case a fresh cause of
action arose, from the pleadings and submissions, the same does not appear
to be so, inasmuch as, no new facts or developments are present to warrant
the institution of the present writ petition. In fact, the only concern is with
the safety of the residents and school children.
12. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to issue any
directions to stop the construction, as the same is clearly in public interest
and has been envisaged to benefit a larger number of citizens of the area.
Coming to the concern with regard to the school children, though the State
respondents have stated on affidavit that safety measures such as speed
breakers, road signages and markings like zebra crossing at vulnerable
locations will be put in place, considering the fact that a large number of
8
2025:MLHC:575
students and pedestrians will also be using the road, it is directed that apart
from the safety measures proposed, adequate traffic personnel should also
be posted during school hours to ensure the safety of the children.
13. There being no other point for consideration, on the directions as
given above, the writ petition is closed and disposed of.
Judge
Meghalaya
02.07.2025
“D.Thabah-PS”
Signature Not Verified 9
Digitally signed by DARIHUN
THABAH
Date: 2025.07.02 03:33:51 IST