Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040003472024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WA/10/2024 Rajo Natung and Anr Son of Late Tagam Natung, resident of Sede village, PO Pijerang, Pakke Kessang District, Arunachal Pradesh 790102 2: Lagung Natung Age: Occupation : Son of Late Boga Natung resident of Vio village PO Pijerang Pakke Kessang District Arunachal Pradesh 79010 VERSUS The State of AP and 6 Ors represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, RWD, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 791111 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY PWD Age: 0 Occupation : ITANAGAR AP PIN-791110 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER Age: 0 Occupation : PWD ITANAGAR AP PIN-791110 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER Page No.# 2/4 RWD Age: 0 Occupation : ITANAGAR AP PIN-791110 5:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR Age: 0 Occupation : DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY(DRDA) ITANAGAR AP PIN-791110 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/PIU RWD Age: 0 Occupation : PAKKE KESANG DISTT HQ- LEMMI AP PIN-790103 7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Age: 0 Occupation : PWD PAKKE KESSANG DISTT HQ LEMMI AP PIN-79010 Advocate for the Petitioner : S K Deori, A Kashyap,Somila Advocate for the Respondent : Gimi Tarak, GA (AP),SC(RWD) Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 04-11-2025 (M. Thakuria, J) Heard Mr. P. Menzo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A. Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel, Road Welfare Department for the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 6. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Senior Government Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 7. 2. This matter is listed today for admission hearing, but Mr. Menzo, learned counsel submitted that in view of the order passed in Cont. Cas(C) No. 458/2020, this writ appeal has become infructuous and hence, they does not want proceed with the case further. 3. It is seen that in the present appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment and order dated 11.08.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 198(AP)/2020. But during the pendency of this case, one contempt petition was filed against the order of the Court in PIL No.101/2023. 4. It is seen from the order passed in Cont. Cas(C) No. 458/2020 dated 24.10.2025 that the contempt petition was accordingly disposed of with an observation that there was no willful contempt of the Court’s order, specially in view of the assertion of the respondent No.2 that all efforts shall be made t upgrade/repair the 31 Kilometres stretch between Sedde-Pakro which was left out in the new alignment as far as it is possible. Page No.# 4/4 5. So, considering the order passed in the Cont. Cas(C) No. 458/2020 as well as the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the opinion that the present appeal has already become infructuous and accordingly, the same stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant