Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040018382025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/522/2025 Aether Alloys LLP Office at Legi Building/ Complex, A Sector, Papum Pare District, Naharlagun 791110 Arunachal Pradesh represented by its authorized person Mr Niraj Sharma VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Arunachal Civil Secretariat, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Superintendent of Police Age: 0 Occupation : Pasighat East Siang District. 4:The Additional Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Ruksin East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Dishing Tagi Age: 36 Occupation : Son of Late Begom Tagi Ruksin Page No.# 2/4 East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : H K Jamoh, Eddie Payeng Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Signal Yirang BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 24.08.2026 Heard Ms. G. Jetley Rautray, learned counsel appearing through video conferencing, along with Mr. S. Sircar and Mr. H. K. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents No.1 to 4 and Mr. S. Yirang, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P. P. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner, an LLP, is engaged in manufacturing of Ferro Silicon at the Industrial Growth Centre, Niglok-Ngorlung, in the district of East Siang, claims to be aggrieved by the illegal obstruction and blockade caused by some protesters. The grievance of the petitioner is also with regard to the failure of the State authorities to maintain public order and ensure unobstructed access to the premises of the petitioner’s lawful business. The petitioner contends that the State authorities have failed to maintain public order and ensure unobstructed access to the premises of the petitioner’s lawful business and the operation of the factory, which was established after obtaining all the requisite statutory permissions. 3. The State authorities, through the learned Addl. Advocate General, Mr. N. Ratan, have filed an Action Taken Report, which reflects that there has been a Page No.# 3/4 continuous public protest that has prevented the petitioner’s factory from its operation. Objections to its operation have been raised by the local people through various means, including attempts to block roads by crowds of persons, burning of tyres on public roads, and blocking roads by members of the public carrying various kinds of arms. It also reflects that the State authorities have deployed police and CRPF personnel near the factory premises of the petitioner. 4. Upon consideration of the issue raised in the present proceedings, this Court had directed the State authorities to convene a meeting to resolve the issues. Accordingly, a Report of the joint meeting has been placed before this Court today in a sealed cover. The meeting was headed by the Commissioner (Industries) as the Chairperson/Nodal Officer, and included the Commissioner (Home); Deputy Commissioner, East Siang; Superintendent of Police, East Siang; Member Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh State Pollution Control; Director (Industries); ADC, Ruksin; and Project Manager, IGC, East Siang. The report reflects that the petitioner has already obtained all requisite statutory approvals/NOCs from the concerned competent authorities, including the consent to establish/operate from the Arunachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board, NOC from the Power Department, and valid factory and trading license. It has been observed that the petitioner is required to strictly comply with all the terms and conditions stipulated in the aforesaid approvals/NOCs, as well as with all other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 5. It is submitted at the Bar that, at present, the factory is operating smoothly and without any disturbance. It is further assured by the respondents that, as and when the necessity arises, appropriate steps would be taken to prevent any such unnecessary disturbance to the operation of the petitioner factory. Page No.# 4/4 6. Having considered that the petitioner is operating the factory after obtaining and maintaining all the requisite statutory approvals, permissions and NOCs from the concerned authorities, and also taking into consideration the submission that, at present, no further disturbance is being caused to the operation of the petitioner’s factory, I deem it appropriate to close the present writ petition, as no issue remains to be adjudicated upon. However, it is observed that the respondent authorities shall ensure that adequate law and order is maintained in and around the factory premises so as to prevent any untoward incident or public disturbance and to facilitate the peaceful and uninterrupted operation of the petitioner factory, in accordance with law. 7. As sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Rautray, liberty is granted to revive the present writ petition, if the occasion so arises. 8. A report of the joint meeting, as placed before this Court by Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General, is taken on record and shall be marked as “X” for identification. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant