Quashed

Minjom Bagra v. the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC19 Sept 2022WP(C)/23/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed impugned orders dated 09.06.2021 and 06.09.2021 issued by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 38 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, which were held ultra vires as that specific provision was deleted by the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021, effective 12.04.2021.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 09.06.2021 and 06.09.2021 issued by the Deputy Commissioner are set aside and quashed.

Minjom Bagra Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040000522022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 23/2022

¶5

1:Minjom Bagra Son of Late Lmin Bagra,

¶6

Resident of Upper Colony, Aalo, PO and PS Aalo, West Siang District, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF AP and 3 Ors.

¶9

Represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh

¶10

2:The Deputy Commissioner Basar Leparada District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶11

3:The Additional Deputy Commissioner Basar Leparada District Arunachal Pradesh

¶12

4:Miba Basar Daughter of Sri Tomi Basar

¶13

Nyigam Village PO and PS Basar Leparada District Arunachal Prades

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : G Taloh

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP)

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 19-09-2022

¶20

Heard Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents.

¶21

None has appeared for the respondent no. 4 despite service of notice, as indicated in the Office note, dated 17.09.2022.

¶22

The petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the order dated 09.06.2021, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Leparada District, Basar, vide Memo No. DC/LRD/LK-176/2019-20/1129 and also reminder dated 06.09.2021, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Leparada District, Basar, vide Memo No. DC/LRD/LK-176/2019-20/1373, whereby, the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 has been directed to submit list of their arbitrators for adjudication of the dispute between them, under Section 38 of Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945.

¶23

The primary challenge made by the petitioner in assailing both the order and the reminder issued to petitioner is that Section 38 of Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, has been deleted by the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021, which came into force on and from 12.04.2021.

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

To the above contention made by the petitioner, the State respondents, through the affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2, in paragraph – 14, thereof, has stated that when the impugned order dated 09.06.2021 and 06.09.2021 were passed, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 were unaware about the deletion of Section 38 of Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945.

¶26

In view of the above, it is now a settled position that by the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021, enacted by the legislature of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, which came into force from 12.04.2021; Section 38 of Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, has been deleted.

¶27

In that view of the matter, the respondent authorities could not have issued the imgpuend order dated 09.06.2021 and 06.09.2021.

¶28

Accordingly, the order dated 09.06.2021, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Leparada District, Basar, vide Memo No. DC/LRD/LK176/2019-20/1129 and also reminder dated 06.09.2021, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Leparada District, Basar, vide Memo No. DC/LRD/LK-176/2019-20/1373, are hereby set aside and quashed.

¶29

The petitioner and the respondent no. 4 shall, however, be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for resolution of the dispute, if so advised.

¶30

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Minjom Bagra v. the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minjom Bagra v. the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munu Bengia Vs The State Bank of India

Taba Yal Vs the State of Ap and 57 Ors.

Topenso Tega and 123 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

The State of Ap Vs Ganesh Mech

M/s Y.B Enterprises Vs the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Koiman Wangpan Vs The Union of India and 5 Ors.