Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/87/2026 of Smt. Lalhmangaihi and 5 Ors. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors. on 22 July 2026
GAHC030004872026 THE GAUHATI
GAHC030004872026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/87/2026
Smt. Lalhmangaihi and 5 Ors.
D/o Zokhuma (L),
R/o Zemabawk, Aizawl, Mizoram
2: Sh. F. Vanlalruata
S/o Aithuama
R/o Zemabawk
Aizawl
Mizoram
3: Sh. Lalhiratpuia
S/o Zokhuma (L)
R/o Chanmari
Aizawl
Mizoram
4: Smt Lalngaihawmi
D/oZokhuma (L)
R/o Chanmari
Aizawl
Mizoram
5: Sh. Lalthanzuala (L)) r/b his mother Smt Lalpari S/o Zokhuma (L)
R/o Chanmari
Aizawl
Mizoram
6: Smt. Lalpari
W/o Zokhuma (L)
R/o Chanmari
Aizawl
Mizora
VERSUS
Union of India and 3 Ors.
R/b the Secretary, Ministry of Railways (Railway Bjoard, Govt. of Inida, 256-A Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi - 110001.
2:The Northeast Frontier Railway
R/b Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction)
N.F Railway
Bawngkawn Brigade
Aizawl
Mizoram
3:The Deputy Commissioner cum Competent Autrority Aizawl District Aizawl Mizoram 4:Dr. Lalzirmawia Chhangte IAS (Rtd.)
Arbitrator for Special Railway Project (Bairabi-Sairang New Line)
MINECO
Khatl
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Zoramchhana Advocate for the Respondent : Ms Zairemsangpuii, CGC for R 1&2
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
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
23.07.2026 Heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 as well as Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No. 3. On 16.07.2026, Court passed the following order:- “Heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits that the petitioners are before this Court with a grievance that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have failed to appoint a substitute Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 20-F(6) of the Railways Act, 1989 read with Rule 3 of the Land Acquisition (Special Railway Projects) Rules, 2016 after the withdrawal of the previous Arbitrator (respondent No.4). He submits that a similar issue had cropped up in WP(C)/107/2025 and this Court vide order dated 29.01.2026 had disposed of the said writ petition by directing the respondent authorities concerned to appoint fresh Arbitrator in accordance with law. At this stage Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC has produced the instructions received by her in respect of the WP(C)/107/2025 and similar other cases. She submits that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has appointed one
Shri Vinod .P. Kavle, IAS as an Arbitrator for the five writ petitions which includes WP(C)/107/2025 and the same has been forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Government of Mizoram for his consent on 18.05.2026. In her substantial submission, she has produced a copy of the said Communication dated 18.05.2026. Having regard to the above positions, the learned CGC shall obtain instructions as to whether the instant writ petition i.e., WP(C)/87/2026 can also be included for consideration by the appointed Arbitrator or as to whether a separate Arbitrator will have to be appointed. To enable her to obtain such instructions, a week’s time is granted. List the matter again on 23.07.2026. A copy of the Communication dated 18.05.2026 produced by Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC shall be retained in the record and marked as ‘x’ for identification.”
2. Today, the learned CGC, Ms. Zairemsangpuii submits that the instructions which has been given to her vide letter dated 22.07.2026 is that in WP(C) No. 107/2025, a specific direction was made by this Court for appointment of fresh Arbitrator and accordingly, the Arbitrator was appointed. Therefore, in absence of any direction in the present case, the respondent authorities are not in a position to appoint an Arbitrator. In support of her submission, she has produced a communication dated 22.07.2026 and the same is kept on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification.
3. From the projection of the petitioners, their grievance is that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have failed to appoint a substitute Arbitrator in view of the resignation of the previous Arbitrator. The learned counsel submits that a fresh Arbitrator can be appointed under Section 20-F (6) of the Railways Act, 1989 read with Rule 3 of the Land Acquisition (Special Railway Projects) Rules, 2016. He also submits that similarly, in case of WP(C) No. 107/2025 along with other writ petitions, one Sh. Vinod P. Kavle, IAS has been appointed as Arbitrator and therefore, Court may direct the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to appoint a fresh Arbitrator in accordance with the relevant provisions of law.
4. Considering the above submissions and the instructions received by the learned CGC, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to appoint a fresh Arbitrator in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within an outer limit of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order for disposal of Arbitration Case No. 7/2023.
5. It is also provided that the respondents are not precluded from appointing Sh. Vinod P. Kavle, IAS as an Arbitrator for the present case as well.
6. Writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant