Allowed¶23

Kipa Taro v. The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Sept 2025WP(C)/369/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Gauhati High Court Itanagar Bench; WP(C)/369/2025; Kipa Taro v. The State of AP and Ors; Justice Nelson Sailo; order dated 12.09.2025; Arunachal Pradesh Rural Development Department; Deputy Director (RD) Koloriang current-charge arrangement; order dated 18.07.2025 granting charge; W.T message dated 01.08.2025 withdrawing charge; seniority representation of Sri Chagam Dollo; Secretary (RD) order dated 09.09.2025 rejecting representation; counter affidavit; writ petition disposed of as allowed; interference with charge-withdrawal direction.

What did the court decide?

Interference with (setting aside of) the W.T message dated 01.08.2025 by which the petitioner's charge of Deputy Director, Rural Development Department, Koloriang was withdrawn. ¶23

Kipa Taro Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040013472025

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/369/2025

¶5

Kipa Taro resident of Laying Village, PO and PS Nyapin, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at Amba, Doimukh, Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of AP and 2 Ors represented by the Secretary, (RD) Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Director (RD) Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Joint Director (RD) Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Regum Nabam, Rima Taipodia,Nabam Saha,A Linggi,Nending Kago

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP),

¶10

BEFORE

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

12.09.2025

¶14

Heard Mr. R. Nabam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶17

2. Having regard to the nature of the case projected by the petitioner and also the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents this morning, which has been called for, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage.

¶18

3. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the direction given in the W.T message dated 01.08.2025 sent by the Director, Rural Development Department, Itanagar to Deputy Commissioner, Koloriang, by which the petitioner who was allowed to hold the charge of Deputy Director, Rural Development Department in Koloriang vide order dated 18.07.2025, was withdrawn.

¶19

4. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have filed their counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that one Sri Chagam Dollo had submitted a representation stating that he being senior to the writ petitioner, he should have been allowed to hold the charge of Deputy Director, Rural Development Department, Koloriang. In order to facilitate the examination of the representation, the impugned W.T message dated 01.08.2025 was issued. The counter affidavit however states that the representation was examined and it was found that the petitioner is senior to Sri Chagam Dollo and therefore, the representation cannot be allowed. An order dated 09.09.2025 to this effect has been issued by the Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Rural Development Department.

¶20

5. Considering the stand taken by the respondents in their affidavit-inopposition and the order dated 09.09.2025 annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure-2, the W.T message dated 01.08.2025 would not be

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

sustainable and accordingly the same stands interfered with.

¶23

6. The writ petition is thus disposed of as allowed.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

Comparing Assistant

Kipa Taro v. The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kipa Taro v. The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Debia Tama Vs The State of Ap and 6 Ors.

Debia Tama Vs The State of Ap and 6 Ors.

M/s North India Engineering Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Tadu Takha Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Hage Chailyang and Anr. Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Dr Yankee Modi Vs The State of Ap and 6 Ors.