NORTH EASTERN SECURITY SERVICE (NESS) PRIVATE LTD. vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

2026:MLHC:1277


Serial No. 19
Regular List
MLHC010003772026
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG

WP(C)/121/2026 Date of Decision: 11-11-2026
Uploaded on: 11-11-2026


North Eastern Security Service (NESS)
Private Ltd., a Private limited company
having its registered office at Thakuria
Building, Suraj Nagar, Six Mile, P.O.
Khanapara, Guwahati – 781022, Represented
by its Managing Director Sri Sarat Kalita
…Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

1.State of Meghalaya, represented by the
Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya,
Municipal Administration Department, Shillong,
Meghalaya

2.The Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya,
Municipal Administration Welfare Department,
Shillong, Meghalaya

3.The Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council,
represented by its Secretary, Shillong

4.Licensing Officer, Khasi Hills Autonomous
District Council, Shillong

5.National Institute of Technology, Meghalaya,
Saitsohpen, Sohra, Meghalaya – 793108

6.Registrar, National Institute of Technology,

Meghalaya, Saitsohpen, Sohra, Meghalaya – 793108 …Respondent(s)

1 8
Page of

2026:MLHC:1277
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. S. Chakraborty, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. T. Yangi. B, AAG with
Ms. A. Thungwa, GA(For R 1&2)
Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. D. Lyngdoh, Adv. (For R 3&4)
Dr. R.P. Acharya, Adv. wit
Mr. S. Goenka, Adv. (For R 5&6).

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

JUDGMENT (ORAL):

1. The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in the business of
providing security services to various Government and Non-Governmental
Institutions is before this Court with a prayer for directions for the issuance
of a trading license under the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District (Trading by
Non-Tribals) Regulation, 1954.

2. The brief facts surrounding the matter are that the petitioner pursuant
to a Notice Inviting Tender dated 30.06.2025, floated by the respondents
No. 5 and 6, had bid for the same, and that one of the conditions in the NIT
at Clause – 3 thereof, 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 it appears was successful in the bid and was
2 8
Page of

2026:MLHC:1277
awarded the work order on 10.12.2025, and on 16.01.2026, 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 had been
issued on 21.10.2025, and was valid for a period till 31.03.2026. Thereafter,
the application for inclusion was taken up for consideration by the
Licensing Officer, KHADC and by letter dated 22.01.2026, who expressed
that as the earlier trading license was not meant for the new work order, the
said application should be rejected. Further, by another communication
dated 23.01.2026, the Chief Executive Member addressed to the respondent
No. 5, had written that the contract awarded to the petitioner should be
cancelled and terminated, and that the KHADC would not entertain the
petitioner for further trading license. It is also noted that a show-cause
notice was also issued to the petitioner, as to why the earlier trading license
dated 04.02.2026, should not be cancelled. The petitioner therefore being
aggrieved with the chain of developments, after having been settled with the
work order is before this Court by way of the instant writ application.

3. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
submitted that the clause in the NIT had only sought for a valid trading
license, which the petitioner was given to understand will not be limited to
the future work order, if settled and that in a bonafide belief had made the
application on 16.01.2026, for inclusion of the new work order issued by
3 8
Page of

2026:MLHC:1277
the respondents No. 5 and 6, in the subsisting trading license. He further
submits that both the communications by the Licensing Officer dated
22.01.2026 and the letter dated 23.01.2026, by the Chief Executive Member
were never communicated to the writ petitioner, and as such, he was not
aware about the same, to enable him to take any corrective action. It is
further submitted that the irregularities that has been committed were due to
bonafide belief and mistake, and he prays that as the contract is subsisting
and 134 employees are dependent on the same for their livelihood, the
petitioner be allowed to file a fresh application for issuance of a trading
license for the concerned work.

4. Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. D.
Lyngdoh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 in
reply, has submitted that it is clear from the face of the records itself, that
the petitioner as mandated by the Regulation had not made a fresh
application for a trading license with regard to the new work order, and that
instead had sought to bypass the established procedure, by seeking inclusion
of a fresh work order in the existing trading license for the other two
unrelated works. The petitioner, he submits has abused the process and as
such, deserves no consideration for grant of a trading license,
notwithstanding the work order that has been issued and the work
subsisting.
4 8
Page of

2026:MLHC:1277

5. Dr. R.P. Acharya, learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 and 6
has fairly submitted that in the consideration of the bids, the certificate
issued by the KHADC dated 28.08.2025, was taken into consideration,
wherein it is indicated that the trading license issued to the petitioner was
valid for the year 2025-26, and that the license for the two work orders were
also taken into consideration. However, he submits that the respondents No.
5 and 6, themselves by a communication dated 20.01.2026, had informed
the petitioner that it was to submit a fresh, or renewed trading license for
providing security services at NIT, Meghalaya. He therefore submits that on
this premise, the work order was allowed to be continued by the petitioner,
apart from the undertaking that the earlier personnel who were deputed
should be retained for security services.

6. From the side of the State respondents No. 1 and 2, the learned AAG,
Mrs. T. Yangi. B, has submitted that though the State respondents have no
submissions or materials to place in this regard, in view of the facts as they
have been portrayed, perhaps the District Council respondent in all fairness
be directed to consider a fresh application, if made by the writ petitioner.

7. This Court on hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on
examination of the materials as placed, notes that firstly it is undisputed that
the petitioner is in possession of a valid trading license for two work orders.
As mentioned in the trading license itself, the same has been captioned
under Type of Business that is, providing services of 3 Nos. of Security
5 8
Page of

2026:MLHC:1277
Guard and 3 Nos. of Sweepers at Laitkor Peak and Security Guards at
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Air Force Station. A perusal of the conditions in the
bid document would show that one of the basic requirements, as earlier
mentioned, was that the agency must have a valid trading license issued by
the KHADC under the Regulation. The events that transpired thereafter
however, would show that the petitioner instead of seeking a fresh trading
license for the new work order, had sought inclusion of the same in the
subsisting trading license, which to the mind of this Court is impermissible.

8. The United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District (Trading by Non-Tribals)
Regulation, 1954, has provided the procedure and conditions for granting or
refusing a license at Section – 3A and Section – 6 thereof, and the petitioner
being well aware of the stipulation contained therein, it is not understood as
to how instead of a fresh application being made, had sought for inclusion
of the new work order in the subsisting trading license. Though this has
sought to be explained by the petitioner that as one trading license had been
issued for two work orders, the same would be possible, this explanation is
also not accepted by this Court, inasmuch as, a fresh application would
entail payment of requisite fees, apart from inclusion of all the details
pertaining to the said work order.

9. A pertinent fact however, that this Court notices is that, in the
consideration by the respondents, the rejection by the Licensing Officer,
KHADC and the declaration that the petitioner had committed a fraud on
6 8
Page of

2026:MLHC:1277
the institution was never communicated, nor the petitioner afforded any
opportunity to represent against the same, or to show under what
circumstances, no fresh application had been made. The fact however, that
this Court notes is that a copy of both the letters which have been mentioned
earlier i.e. dated 22.01.2026 by the Licensing Officer and the letter dated
23.12.2026, by the CEM alleging fraud, was never supplied to the petitioner
has not been denied by the respondents. 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.

10. 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
7 8
Page of

2026:MLHC:1277
the issuance of fresh trading license to the petitioner strictly in accordance
with law.

11. It is further provided that the petitioner is also permitted to make
representation against the allegation of fraud as contained in the letter dated
23.01.2026, which the respondents shall also give due consideration. 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.

12. Matter accordingly stands closed and disposed of.

13. Until further orders are passed by the competent authority, the interim
orders passed shall continue.


JUDGE

Meghalaya
12-11-2026
“D.Thabah-PS”

8 8
Page of

DARIHUN THABAH
Digitally signed by:
Signed On: 11-11-2026 17:09:35 IST
Verified