Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/188/2026 of Teli Rontu Camdir Vs The State of AP and 2 Ors on 5 May 2026
GAHC040006002026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/188/2026 Teli Rontu Camdir proprietor of M/s Khinia Business Global Hub, Friday Market, Lekhi Village, Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.
GAHC040006002026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : WP(C)/188/2026
Teli Rontu Camdir proprietor of M/s Khinia Business Global Hub, Friday Market, Lekhi Village, Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.
VERSUS
The State of AP represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar.
2:The Commissioner Secretary
Department of Home Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar.
3:The Deputy Commissioner Capital Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Teto Taba, C Ering,Begi Taba,Nimcha Hondique Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE
HONOURABLE 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
Date : 06.05.2026
Heard Mr. Teto Taba, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Subu Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the matter is taken-up for disposal at the motion stage.
3. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.03.2026, issued by the respondent No. 3 viz. Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, whereby, it has been directed that Weekly Markets in the Itanagar Capital Region shall be operated only on Saturday in terms of the Government decision dated 06.03.2026.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier, by order dated 10.09.2025, he was granted permission to operate a Weekly Market at Lekhi village on Fridays. Pursuant to the permission so granted, he deposited a security amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 18.09.2025 and has been operating the same by adhering to the SOP. However, by the impugned order dated 09.03.2026, issued by the respondent No. 3 viz. Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar; 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.
5. Mr. Tapin, learned Senior Government advocate, fairly submits that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to issuance of the impugned order dated 09.03.2026. However, it is contended that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner inasmuch as he can operate the weekly market on Saturday instead of Friday.
6. Mr. Taba, 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. 3 viz. Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar. 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 the issuance of the impugned order without being heard, thereby, violated the principles of natural justice.
7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels 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. 3 viz. Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar, 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.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.03.2026, issued by the respondent No. 3 viz. Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar insofar as it affects the petitioner, is set aside.
9. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar, 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.
10. 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 10.09.2025, subject to compliance of applicable SOPs.
11. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant