Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/191/2026 of Taba Chake Vs The State of AP and 3 Ors on 10 May 2026
GAHC040006102026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/191/2026 Taba Chake Son of Shri Taba Sera, permanent resident of Village Rono, PO and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of
GAHC040006102026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : WP(C)/191/2026
Taba Chake
Son of Shri Taba Sera, permanent resident of Village Rono, PO and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.
VERSUS
The State of AP and 3 Ors
represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Secretary Age: 0
Occupation :
Department of Home
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
Itanagar 791111
3:The Commissioner
Age: 0
Occupation :
Department of Home
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
Itanagar 791111
4:The Deputy Commissioner
Age: 0
Occupation :
Papum Pare District
Yupia
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
Advocate for the Petitioner : Nabam Rama, Teshi Aaku,Thaddeus Techi,T Rahul,N Kanu,P
Tatam,N Kuma
Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP),
-BEFORE-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
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
11.05.2026 Heard Mr. N. Kuma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for all the respondents.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 09.03.2026, issued by the respondent No. 4/ the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia, whereby, it has been directed that weekly market in the Itanagar Capital Region shall be operated only on Saturday in terms of the Government decision dated 06.03.2026.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier by issuing the Trading License dated 07.07.2022 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia, the petitioner was granted permission to operate a weekly market at Rono, Doimukh on Wednesday. However, by the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 issued by the respondent No. 4/ the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia, the conduct of the weekly market in the Itanagar Capital Region has been restricted to Saturday only. The aforesaid impugned order has been assailed on the ground that it has been issued without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. Mr. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate fairly contended that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to issuance of the impugned order dated 09.03.2026. However, he contended that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner inasmuch as, he can operate the weekly market on Saturday instead of Tuesday.
5. Mr. Kuma, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that no such option has been provided to the petitioner in the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 issued by the respondent No. 4 viz. The Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia. Rather, the Superintendent of Police and the Administrative officers have been directed to ensure the operation of Weekly Market only on Saturday. Thus, the petitioner has been adversely affected by issuance of the impugned order without being heard, therefore, violated the principles of natural justice.
6. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the admitted position that the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 has been issued by the respondent No. 4 viz. the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the same cannot be sustained being in violation of the principles of natural justice.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 issued by the respondent No. 4 viz. The Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia insofar as it affects the petitioner, is set aside.
8. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia is at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering all relevant aspects.
9. It is made clear that till such fresh decision is taken, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue operating the weekly market in terms of the earlier order dated 06.03.2026, subject to compliance of applicable SOPs. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant