Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/423/2026 of Megnath Bori Vs The State of AP and 4 Ors on 8 September 2026
GAHC040014732026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/423/2026 Megnath Bori Son of Shri Podeswar Bori, presently posted and serving as a District Agricultural Officer (Sr Grade), Aalo, West Siang District,
GAHC040014732026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : WP(C)/423/2026
Megnath Bori
Son of Shri Podeswar Bori, presently posted and serving as a District Agricultural Officer (Sr Grade), Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.
VERSUS
The State of AP and 4 Ors
represented by the Secretary, Agriculture, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar. 2:The Commissioner Age: 0
Occupation :
Department of Agriculture
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
Civil Secretariat
Itanagar.
3:The Director
Age: 0
Occupation :
Department of Agriculture
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
Civil Secretariat
Itanagar.
4:The Deputy Commissioner
Age: 0
Occupation :
Aalo
West Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh.
5:Smti Dagyo Basar (Entry Grade)
Age: 0
Occupation :
I/C Principal
Gram Sevak Training Centre
Pasighat
East Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh
Advocate for the Petitioner : Kemo Lollen, Tojum Tao,Maryum Sora,Geli Taye,D Ado,Kaling Mengu Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Muchi Mele BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 09.09.2026
Heard Shri K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri L. Perme, learned Standing Counsel for the Agriculture Department and Ms R. Basar, learned State counsel for the official respondent as well as Shri R. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri I. Bam, learned counsel for the caveator/private respondent No.5.
2. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself.
3. The grievance is the order of transfer dated 31.08.2026, as per which, the petitioner has been transferred from Aalo to Likabali. The petitioner was holding the post of District Agriculture Officer. By the said order, the respondent No.5 has been posted as the District Agriculture Officer at Aalo.
4. Shri Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was serving as Principal of the Gram Training Centre at Pasighat since the year 2024. On 04.08.2026, he was transferred as District Agriculture Officer and posted at Aalo and pursuant to which, he had joined the post on 10.08.2026. It is however, the case of the petitioner that the elected Zilla Parishad members had submitted a representation on 12.08.2026, followed by a UO note dated 13.08.2026 by the local MLA to the concerned Minister for accommodating the respondent No.5 at Aalo. Pursuant thereto, the impugned modified order of transfer had been passed on 31.08.2026.
5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the transfer order dated 04.08.2026 was acted upon, the impugned modified transfer order could not have been issued within a span of 26(twenty-six) days. He has submitted that there is no public interest involved and only interest is to accommodate the respondent No.5, which is discernible from the materials on record.
6. Shri Perme, learned Standing Counsel for the Agriculture Department has however, defended the action and has submitted that the order has been passed in the interest of the public.
7. Strenuously opposing the writ petition, Shri R. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.5, who has filed caveat, has submitted that even prior to the initial order of transfer dated 04.08.2026, there was a request from all the elected Zilla Parishad members to accommodate his client at Aalo and such recommendation per se cannot be term as illegal. He has submitted that the Zilla Parishad members and the local MLA being aware of the requirements of the region had recommended the case of the respondent No.5, which was duly considered. He submits that such transfer is indeed in the interest of public service.
8. While rival submissions have been advanced by the learned counsel for the contesting parties, this Court has noticed that the petitioner has not submitted any representation before approaching this Court requesting for reconsideration and modification of the impugned order dated 31.08.2026. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should approach the authority at first before approaching this Court so as to enable consideration of the case of the petitioner in accordance with law.
9. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file detail representation before the respondent No.1, which should be done within a period of a week, which is to expire on 15.09.2026. If such representation is filed, the same is directed to be taken on board to consider and dispose of strictly in accordance with law. The authority may also give opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No.5, if so desire. Such consideration and disposal be made as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 15(fifteen days) from the date of submission of such representation.
10. To balance the equities and in the interest of justice, it is provided that till such representation is disposed of, the status quo as on today be maintained.
11. The writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant +05'30'