Gichik Tama Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2026)

Gichik Tama Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 09.03.2026 set aside insofar as it affects the petitioner; Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing; till such fresh decision, petitioner permitted to continue operating the weekly market in terms of the earlier order dated 01.04.2025, subject to applicable SOPs; writ petition disposed of with the above observations.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 issued by respondent No. 3 (Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar), restricting the weekly market in the Itanagar Capital Region to Saturday only and admittedly passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, is sustainable, having regard to the principles of natural justice.

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 09.03.2026 issued by respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner cannot be sustained, being in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 09.03.2026 issued by respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar, is set aside insofar as it affects the petitioner.

Key takeaways

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.ratio¶22
Until a fresh decision is taken, the petitioner is permitted to continue operating the weekly market in terms of the earlier order dated 01.04.2025, subject to compliance of applicable SOPs.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a weekly-market trader holding a Trading Licence dated 01.04.2015 (Tuesday market at Colony Dokosu, Zoo Road, Gohpur, Town-Itanagar) against the order dated 09.03.2026 of the Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar, restricting weekly markets in the Itanagar Capital Region to Saturdays only in terms of the Government decision dated 06.03.2026. Held: the impugned order, admittedly issued without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing, violated the principles of natural justice and could not be sustained; it was set aside insofar as it affected the petitioner, with liberty to the Deputy Commissioner to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after due hearing and consideration of all relevant aspects; until such fresh decision, the petitioner was permitted to continue operating the weekly market in terms of the earlier order dated 01.04.2025, subject to compliance of applicable SOPs. Writ petition disposed of. (Budi Habung, J.; 11.05.2026)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC040003692026

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/101/2026

Gichik Tama Son of Gichik Tanang, resident of Dokusu, Zoo Road, Gohpur, PO Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar. 2:The Commissioner Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Home Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Capital Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Itanagar Municipal Corporation Itanagar

Advocate for the Petitioner : Teto Taba, L Koyu,Punung Borang,C Ering,Nimcha Hondique,Nang walika Jenow,Begi Taba

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP),

-BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG

ORDER

11.05.2026

Heard Mr. T. Taba, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for all the

Page No.# 2/3

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. 3/ the Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar, 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 01.04.2015 issued by the Commissioner, Itanagar Municipal Corporation, the petitioner was granted permission to operate a weekly market at Colony Dokosu, Zoo Road, Gohpur, Town-Itanagar on Tuesday. However, by the impugned order dated 09.03.2026, issued by the respondent No. 3, 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by issuing the said impugned order, the petitioner has been adversely affected as the same was issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereby violated the principles of natural justice.

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.

6. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the

Page No.# 3/3

parties and in view of the admitted position that the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 has been issued by the respondent No. 3/the 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.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 issued by the respondent No. 3 viz. The Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar insofar as it affects the petitioner, is set aside.

8. 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.

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 01.04.2025, subject to compliance of applicable SOPs.

With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

Comparing Assistant