While observing that not granting an opportunity to the applicant to represent against the uncommunicated allegations of fraud made against it would cast a stigma, the Meghalaya High Court has asked the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) to reconsider a license application of a security services Company.

The High Court was considering a petition filed by a private limited company engaged in the business of providing security services to various Government and Non-Government Institutions seeking directions for the issuance of a trading license under the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District (Trading by Non-Tribals) Regulation, 1954.

The Single Bench of Justice H. S. Thangkhiew held, “Coming back to the matter in question, in view of the circumstances surrounding the case, coupled with the fact that the petitioner was never communicated with the proposed rejection and the allegation of fraud, which in the opinion of this Court has also cast a stigma, it is therefore provided that the respondents on an application being made, shall consider the issuance of fresh trading license to the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.”

Advocate S. Chakraborty represented the Petitioner, while Additional Advocate General T. Yangi. B represented the State, Senior Advocate H.L. Shangreiso represented the KHADC, and the NIT Meghalaya was represented by Advocate Dr. R.P. Acharya.

Factual Background

The petitioner, pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender, bid for the same, and one of the conditions in the NIT was that the agency must have a valid trading license issued by the KHADC under the provisions of the Trading by Non-Tribals Regulation. The petitioner was successful in the bid and was awarded the work order. The petitioner applied for inclusion of the new work order in an existing trade license, which had been issued to it for two works at Laitkor Peak and at EAC, Upper Shillong in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Air Force Station.

The said trading license was valid for a period till March 31, 2026. Thereafter, the application for inclusion was taken up for consideration by the Licensing Officer, KHADC, who expressed that the earlier trading license was not meant for the new work order and the said application should be rejected. Further, by another communication, the Chief Executive Member had written that the contract awarded to the petitioner should be cancelled and terminated. The petitioner, being aggrieved, with the chain of developments, after having been settled with the work order, approached the Court with the writ petition.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner was in possession of a valid trading license for two work orders and, as mentioned in the trading license itself, the same was captioned under Type of Business which included providing services of guards and Sweepers at Laitkor Peak and Security Guards at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Air Force Station.

The Bench noted that the rejection by the Licensing Officer, KHADC and the declaration that the petitioner had committed a fraud on the institution were never communicated, nor was the petitioner afforded any opportunity to represent against the same.

“Further, it is observed that if the respondent District Council had deemed it fit to deny the writ petitioner, the license on the grounds so stated, the same should have been communicated in no uncertain terms, instead of taking recourse to show-cause the petitioner on 04.02.2026 for the license that had been validly granted on the earlier occasion. The Regulation has also provided that Section 8 thereof, the manner in which a license can be cancelled. As such, in the opinion the Court, the action taken by the KHADC in issuing the show-cause dated 04.02.2026 at this juncture, deserves no consideration by this Court in the instant writ petition”, it added.

Taking the circumstances surrounding the case into consideration, coupled with the fact that the petitioner was never communicated with the proposed rejection and the allegation of fraud, which cast a stigma, the Bench ordered the respondents to consider the issuance of fresh trading license to the petitioner in accordance with law.

The Bench thus disposed of the Petition by clarifying that the petitioner can make a representation against the allegation of fraud, which the respondents would give due consideration to. “The petitioner is therefore directed to put in a fresh application within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of this order, and the respondents to consider the same strictly in accordance with law and the Regulation, thereafter”, it ordered.

Cause Title: North Eastern Security Service Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:MLHC:1277)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate S. Chakraborty

Respondents: Additional Advocate General T. Yangi. B, Govt Advocate A. Thungwa, Senior Advocate H.L. Shangreiso, Advocates D. Lyngdoh, Dr. R.P. Acharya, S. Goenka

Click here to read/download Order


Meghalaya High CourtJustice HS Thangkhiew

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.