Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040020102025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/571/2025 Binod Perme and Anr Son of late Omorsing Perme, permanent resident of Mer Village, Namsing Circle, Pasihgat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Dino Taye Age: Occupation : Son of Late Jarman Taye permanent resident of Mer Village Namsing Circle Pasihgat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Ors represented by the Secretary, General Administration, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : General Administration Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Additional Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Page No.# 2/6 Mebo East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Circle Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Namsing Circle East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Dicky Panging, Omor Panggam,Tenzin Tsowang,Mitin Boko,Chatung Tajo,Doge Lona,Marge Doji,Daina Tamuk,R Pait Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER Date : 01-04-2026 The instant application under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed with the following reliefs:- A) A Writ of the nature of Certiorari should not be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned order being Memo No.ES-28018/8/2023/3222- 26 dated 24.09.2025 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh by which the petitioners were put under suspension for a period of 8 (eight) months from the date of issuance of the order and the duties of the petitioners as Gaon Burahs of Mer Village were assigned to Gaon Burahs of adjoining Gadum village. B) A Writ of the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang district, Pasighat to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing any order/order(s) against the petitioners. Page No.# 3/6 C) Pass any other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. As per the facts projected, two petitioners, who are Gaon Burahs of Mer Village are aggrieved by an order dated 24.09.2025, whereby, their services have been put under suspension for a period of 8(eight) months. It is submitted that the petitioners were serving diligently as Gaon Burahs and in February, 2025 one Lombo Tayeng had approached the petitioners for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for obtaining LPC in respect of certain land. The petitioners had accordingly, granted the NOC, which is mandatory for obtaining LPC. The area, however, was a subject matter of exploration by the Indian Oil Corporation and accordingly, on 09.05.2025, complaint was made against the issuance of LPC. However, on 27.06.2025, the petitioners had issued further certificate in non-judicial stamp paper in favour of the application for obtaining LPC. 3. I have heard Shri D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 4. Shri Panging, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, has submitted that the impugned order of suspension itself is a penalty and is not in contemplation of any further action. He has also submitted that the tenure of suspension as provided in the impugned order was 8(eight) months which is to expire sometime in May, 2026. 5. On the merits of the case, the learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice on Page No.# 4/6 more than two counts. He has submitted that firstly, the report based on which the impugned order has been passed has not been furnished to the petitioners to enable them to represent against the same. Secondly, it is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners were aware of the complaint dated 09.05.2025. By drawing the attention of this Court to the reply filed in the proceeding, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that their action has been fully justified and it has been submitted that all the actions taken were bonafide and in the interest of the society. Shri Panging, learned counsel has also contended that under the Regulation holding the field, there is no power to suspend a Gaoh Burah. 6. Shri Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, on the other hand, has submitted that the order of suspension has been rightly passed in view of the misconduct apparent on the face of it. He has submitted, at the outset, that non-furnishing of the report would not, per se, be a ground of interference unless the petitioners are able to demonstrate that any legal prejudice has been caused to them in setting up their defence. He has also submitted that the petitioners, apart from giving the NOC in the format for grant of LPC have subsequently, given another certificate on 27.06.2025, knowing fully well that there was a complaint against the application for grant of LPC. It is submitted that the area in question was subject matter of exploration by the Indian Oil Corporation and the petitioners had acted without any bona fide in mechanically issuing the NOC for grant of the LPC. In reply to the submission regarding power to suspend, the learned State counsel has Page No.# 5/6 referred to Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, which provides that power of appointment would also include power to suspend and dismiss. 7. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court including the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.3 and 4 on 27.02.2026 have been duly considered. 8. The impugned order of suspension dated 24.09.2025 has been carefully perused and this Court finds force in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the order is not in contemplation of any further action and itself can be deemed to be a penal action. That being so, it would be necessary for this Court to examine the aspect as to whether the petitioners were given a fair opportunity to defend themselves. 9. It is not in dispute that the impugned order was based on an enquiry report. Reading of the said impugned order would show that in the enquiry made, the petitioners were given an opportunity to participate. However, it is not in dispute that the report of the enquiry was not furnished to the petitioners and it is also not in dispute that based on the said report the impugned order has been passed. 10. In the opinion of this Court, a report based upon which the impugned order has been passed, having adverse civil consequences, a copy of the said report is required to be furnished to the petitioners and further opportunity should be granted to place their views, which admittedly has not been done. Though a submission has been advanced on behalf of the Page No.# 6/6 State that no prejudice has been served by non-furnishing of the report, this Court is unable to accept the aforesaid submission, inasmuch as, admittedly the consideration of the report has culminated in an order having adverse civil consequence which would require giving of an adequate opportunity to the petitioners. This Court has also noted that the order of suspension was for a period of 8(eight) months which is otherwise going to be over sometime in May, 2026. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that case for interference is made out and accordingly, the impugned order of suspension dated 24.09.2025, is set aside. The petitioners are accordingly directed to be reinstated in their posts as Gaon Burah forthwith. 12. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant