Meghalaya HC questions government claims on weighbridge operations amid corruption allegations

The High Court of Meghalaya has expressed scepticism over the state government's assertion that no overloaded trucks have passed through any of the 28 operational weighbridges across the state, directing the petitioner to provide detailed evidence to counter the official report.

Chief Justice I.P. Mukerji and Justice W. Diengdoh, hearing a public interest litigation filed by Tenny Dard M. Marak, noted the government's categorical denial of irregularities despite allegations of widespread corruption and revenue loss at these critical checkpoints.

The PIL alleges that "carriers and the government officials are involved in illegal activity" with goods vehicles being "allowed to pass without proper weighment." The petition further claims that many weighbridges have been rendered non-functional, leading to significant revenue losses for the state treasury.

However, the government's report, filed on May 16, 2025, painted a starkly different picture. According to the official submission, "not a single overloaded truck had passed or was allowed to pass through the 28 weighbridges." The report also highlighted that "in the international transit between Bhutan, India and Bangladesh the level of control by the Indian authority was minimal."

The court's journey through this case began in December 2024 when it first sought a government report. By February 2025, the bench recorded that "a proper inspection and report were not forthcoming" and set a deadline for May 2025.

Dr P Agarwal, representing the petitioner, rejected the government's findings, prompting the court to seek additional clarification. The state government, in its subsequent report, maintained its position, reiterating "that there is no irregularity or illegality in the weighment of goods vehicles across those weighbridges."

The court has now placed the burden of proof squarely on the petitioner, directing them to file a comprehensive affidavit by August 1, 2025. The bench observed that "shorn of the necessary details, it would not be possible for this Court to adjudge the merits of the allegation made by the petitioner."