Ms Mary Megu and Anr. Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC040003182026

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/85/2026

¶5

Ms Mary Megu and Anr

¶6

Daughter of Kakir Megu, resident of Qtr No. 506/ T-II, D Sector Naharlagun, PO and PS Naharlagun, Itanagar Capital Region, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

2: Smti Omi Taga Age: Occupation : Daughter of Late Tasong Taga resident of Qtr No. 501/ T-II D Sector Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Itanagar Capital Region Arunachal Pradesh

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The State of AP and 2 Ors represented by the Commissioner (Urban Affairs), Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Director of Housing Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : (Urban Development) Itanagar Division Itanagar

¶10

Page No.# 2/5

¶11

Arunachal Pradesh

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : Nalo Pada, Joshep Gao,Takom Roleng,Juel Saroh,Bomnya Kamdak Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP),

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 11.03.2026

¶16

Heard Mr. N. Pada, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondents.

¶17

[2.] Having regard to the nature of grievance projected by the petitioners, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage.

¶18

[3.] The petitioners are aggrieved with the Notification dated 12.01.2026 (Annexure-III) and the Communication dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure-V) by which they have been asked to vacate the Government residential quarters which they are occupying on the ground that the Government is going to develop the quarters by constructing a new multi-storied building. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact some private parties have encroached the Government quarters and land while the Government is not taking any action against them, they have asked the petitioners to vacate their respective quarters within a timeframe. He submits that without hearing the petitioners they have been asked to vacate the quarters. Further, the representation submitted by the petitioners on 09.02.2026 before the respondents have also not been considered and disposed of till date. The learned counsel therefore submits that the impugned Notification and the

¶19

Page No.# 3/5

¶20

Communication as stated herein above should be set aside.

¶21

[4.] Ms. G. Ete, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate on the other hand submits that the petitioners have been asked to vacate the Government quarters vide Notification dated 12.01.2026, on the ground that the Government has taken a decision to construct a new multi-storied building by dismantling the old crumbling structures of the Government quarters. She submits that the Government has also decided to provide alternative temporary accommodation or given the occupants the option of availing house rent allowance till the new multi-storied building is constructed. The Government has also taken a decision to re-accommodate the Government employees who have vacated their respective quarters in the first slot on completion of the construction of the flats. Despite the same, since the quarters have not been vacated, another communication was made to the employees concerned including the instant petitioners on 02.02.2026, requesting them to vacate the quarters by 15.02.2026. However, the petitioners have refused to vacate the quarters.

¶22

[5.] The learned State counsel also submits that similarly situated persons who were also aggrieved by the impugned Notification and the Communication had approached this Court by filing WP(C)/59/2026 ( Smti Tongam Basar Vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & 3 Ors ). This Court upon consideration of the grievance projected by the petitioners and the instructions received by the Govt. Counsel, disposed of the writ petition by allowing the petitioner therein to stay till the completion of examination of one of the children i.e., 16.03.2026. In the meantime, the petitioner has been asked to decide whether she would avail the alternative temporary accommodation or avail house rent allowance. This Court had also made it clear that the petitioner should vacate the quarter on or before 20.03.2026.

¶23

Page No.# 4/5

¶24

[6.] Ms. G. Ete, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate therefore submits that even in the instant case, the grievance is against the impugned Notification as well as the Communication of 02.02.2026 and the prayer of the petitioners that they should remain in the quarter till they attain the age of superannuation cannot be allowed by any means. She therefore submits that a similar order may be passed in the instant case as well.

¶25

[7.] Having regard to the above projection made by the petitioner and the instructions received by the learned State counsel including the earlier direction passed by this Court in a similar case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners cannot be said to have the right to remain in the quarters in view of the decision taken by the State Govt. for constructions of new multi-storied building to accommodate its employees including the writ petitioners. It is also seen that despite the last date for vacation being given as 15.02.2026, the petitioners are still residing in the quarters and further the projection made by them is that the representation filed on 09.02.2026 is not yet considered and disposed of till date.

¶26

[8.] In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners on 09.02.2026 within a period of 1(one) week from today by passing appropriate reasoned order. It is provided herein that till the representation is considered and disposed of as directed herein above, the petitioner shall not be forced to leave their quarters. However, depending upon the decision taken by the respondent authorities concerned, it would be incumbent upon the petitioners to comply with the order to be passed as directed herein above. The petitioner shall also decide as to whether they would like to avail the alternative quarters to be provided by the agency in terms of the Notification dated 12.01.2026 or to avail house rent allowance.

¶27

Page No.# 5/5

¶28

[9.] With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands

¶29

disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Ms Mary Megu and Anr. v. The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Mary Megu and Anr. 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arunachal Pradesh Veterinarian Association and Anr. Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Tano Gongo Vs The State of Ap and 23 Ors.

Sri Shyamal Krishna Roy Vs the State of Assam

M/s H N Enterprises Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Ms Phekhu Wangsu Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

M/s Gloria Enterprises Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.