Taba Chake Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040006102026

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/191/2026

¶5

Taba Chake

¶6

Son of Shri Taba Sera, permanent resident of Village Rono, PO and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of AP and 3 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Home Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 791111

¶9

3:The Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Home Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 791111

¶10

4:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Papum Pare District Yupia Govt of Arunachal Pradesh

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : Nabam Rama, Teshi Aaku,Thaddeus Techi,T Rahul,N Kanu,P Tatam,N Kuma

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP),

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

-BEFORE

¶15

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER

¶16

11.05.2026

¶17

Heard Mr. N. Kuma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for all the respondents.

¶18

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. 4/ the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia, 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.

¶19

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier by issuing the Trading License dated 07.07.2022 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia, the petitioner was granted permission to operate a weekly market at Rono, Doimukh on Wednesday. However, by the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 issued by the respondent No. 4/ the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia, 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.

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

4. Mr. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate fairly contended that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to issuance of the impugned order dated 09.03.2026. However, he contended that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner inasmuch as, he can operate the weekly market on Saturday instead of Tuesday.

¶22

5. Mr. Kuma, 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. 4 viz. The Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia. 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 issuance of the impugned order without being heard, therefore, violated the principles of natural justice.

¶23

6. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel 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. 4 viz. the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia 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.

¶24

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 issued by the respondent No. 4 viz. The Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia insofar as it affects the petitioner, is set aside.

¶25

Page No.# 4/4

¶26

8. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia 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.

¶27

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 06.03.2026, subject to compliance of applicable SOPs.

¶28

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

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Taba Chake v. The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taba Chake v. The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Tania Punung Vs the State of A.P.

Sri Biri James Vs the State of A.P.

Smti Moyir Nomuk Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Hari Sono Vs The State of Ap and 5 Ors.

Tana Hide and Anr. Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Gichik Tama Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.