Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040006722025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WA/19/2025 Yobin Welfare Society represented by its General Secretary Mr Yusihey Yobin, Son of Late M Yobin, resident of Dawodi Village, PO and PS Vijoynagar, Changlang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS Thuing Singpho and 7 Ors Wife of Late Pisi Jawlai Singpho (GB of Pisi Village) resident of Upper Colony Miao, PO and PS Miao, Changlang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:Sirai Singpho Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Kumku Gam Singpho (representative of the chief of Singpho Tribe of Nhkmsang Area) resident of K G Singpho Complex PO and PS Miao Changlang District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Union of India Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Secretary (EF and CC) Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Govt of India Indira Paryavaran Bhawan Jorbagh Road New Delhi 110003 4:The State of Arunachal Pradesh Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Chief Secretary Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Page No.# 2/6 Civil Secretariat Itanagar 791111 5:The Director General of Forest and Special Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Govt of India Indira Paryavaran Bhawan Jorbagh Road New Delhi 110003 6:The Principal Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Environment Forest and Climate Change Department Itanagar 791111 7:The Secretary (Land Management) Age: 0 Occupation : Land Management Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar 791111 8:The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Age: 0 Occupation : Head of Forest Force Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : Gujusa Yobin, Mitem Ratan Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, H Rahman,G Alam,Khogen Bui,Parswajyoti Das Nair,GA (AP),DSGI Page No.# 3/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER S.K. Medhi, J. 07.02.2026 By filing this intra-court appeal, a challenge has been made to an order dated 07.04.2025 passed in I.A.(C)/146/2024 arising out of WP(C)/119(AP)/2024. The aforesaid I.A. was filed for impleadment of the present appellant as the respondent no. 12. 2. As per the facts projected, on the date when the matter had come up on 07.04.2025, a prayer for adjournment was made on behalf of the learned leading counsel for the present appellant on medical ground and a letter of absence was also filed. However, the learned Single Judge had come to a finding that the same was not a good enough reason to adjourn the matter, more so when five numbers of counsel have filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant and therefore, the prayer for adjournment was rejected. The decision on the aspect of impleadment, however, has been made on merits and the same has been done, admittedly, without hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant. 3. We have heard Shri P. Yobin, learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Shri P.D. Nair, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner whereas Shri N. Ratan, learned Addl. A.G., A.P. appears for the State. 4. Shri Yobin, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that while the Page No.# 4/6 application for impleadment has been rejected, observations on merits have been made which, perhaps could not have been done by the Hon’ble Single Judge. He has submitted that it is a settled position of law that in absence of a counsel of a party, at best, the matter can be dismissed for default but no observation on merits should be made. 5. Shri Nair, learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioners) has submitted that there was no case made out for impleadment as the cause of action in the writ petition is not connected with the present appellant. He has also submitted that in the I.A.(C)/146/2024, objections were filed and those were taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Single Judge. The learned counsel has, however, fairly contended that the order was passed without a proper hearing from the side of the present appellant-applicant. 6. Shri Ratan, learned Addl. A.G., A.P. has submitted that appropriate orders may be passed in the present appeal in accordance with law. 7. The rival submissions advanced in the Court have been duly considered and the materials on record carefully examined. 8. Certain facts appear to be undisputed. On the date, when the matter was taken up for consideration, a prayer for adjournment was made on behalf of the appellant-applicant on medical ground. The same was also followed by an application seeking leave for absence. The Hon’ble Single Judge had, however, made an observation in paragraph 2 that there were five counsel for the appellant-applicant who had signed the Vakalatnama and there was no letter of absence for all the five counsel. Though the aforesaid observation may be Page No.# 5/6 factually correct, we are of the opinion that on the practical side, it is one of the counsel, who normally argues the matter. We have also noted that in the impugned order dated 07.04.2025, the application for impleadment has been rejected on merits. 9. It is prudent for a Court not to pass any order or judgment on merits in the absence of the parties and as per the settled law and at best, such an application can be dismissed for default. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that the I.A. (C)/146/2024 would require a reconsideration on merits. According, the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 stands set aside. Consequently, the I.A. (C)/146/2024 stands restored to file. 11. We, however, make it clear that the interference made by this Court is only on the aspect of giving the appellant-applicant an opportunity to make out a case for its impleadment in which, the present respondent-writ petitioner would have all the opportunities to oppose. 12. In view of the above, the appeal stands allowed and the matter is remanded to the Hon’ble Single Judge to decide the I.A.(C)/146/2024 on its own merits. 13. It is also made clear that while taking such a decision, the observation made in the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 shall not influence the Court. Page No.# 6/6 14. Since we have been informed that the date fixed in the connected writ petition is 02.03.2026, the Registry is directed to list the I.A.(C)/146/2024 on the same date. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant