Meghalaya High Court flags discrepancies in mineral transport data, seeks detailed affidavits

Meghalaya High Court has raised concerns over inconsistencies in a state transport report on mineral movement, observing a possible attempt to mislead the court and directing authorities to submit detailed affidavits.

The matter arose in PIL No. 4 of 2026, where a status report filed by the state was taken on record. The report stated that “between the period from April 2025 to February 2026, a total of 2,030 vehicles have transported a quantity of 25,902 MT of minor minerals,” adding that the average movement was “less than 7 (seven) vehicles per day” through the Jaintia Hills Territorial Division.

However, the bench noted that this claim appeared inconsistent with a chart annexed to the same report. When questioned, the Advocate General sought time to obtain instructions. The court observed that the statement was “completely contrary” to the annexed data and said there appeared to be an attempt to mislead the court regarding the figures.

The order also highlighted enforcement gaps. While some vehicles were found violating provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and were fined, there was no indication of any prosecution during the period between April 22 and April 25, 2026. The court pointed out the absence of data showing whether offenders were first-time or repeat violators.

Authorities have been asked to clarify whether a centralised database of registered vehicles and penalties exists, and whether it tracks repeat offences. Affidavits from relevant departments are to be filed by May 4.

A separate status report submitted by border authorities stated that their “main task… is to provide security” and that they have no role in checking documents such as licences, pollution certificates or vehicle fitness, as they are not empowered under law to do so.

The court has granted time for further responses from both state departments and the Land Customs Station.

To assist proceedings, Philemon Nongbri has been appointed as amicus. The court has also directed the Commissioner of Transport and the Secretary of the Forest Department to remain present at the next hearing.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on May 6.