Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040004642025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/128/2025 Takio Malik Tarh Son of Late Takio Yano and Late Takio Soni, presently residing at Govt Qtr No.43, Type II at D Sector, Itanagar, Capital Complex, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh 791111 VERSUS The Circle Officer cum Estate Officer and 3 Ors Itanagar Capital Complex, Itanagar, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Capital Itanagar Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Director Housing Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:Smti Biki Yapak PRT Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh 79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : Nabam Chamang, Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 01.04.2025 Heard Mr. N. Chamang, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice no. EM/ITA/JUD-01/2024/67 dated 19.03.2025, issued by the Circle Officer-cum-Estate Officer, Itanagar Capital Complex, Itanagar, by which, on the complaint made by the respondent no.4, one Smti. Biri Mema (Byabang), Itanagar was directed to vacated the Govt. quarter mentioned in the said notice within 5 (five) days, failing which, appropriate action was threatened. 3. The case of the petitioner is that his mother (since deceased), namely, Smti. Takio Yano, when alive was working as a Peon in the establishment of the Arunachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board and she was allowed to occupy quarter no. 43/Type-II, located at D-Sector, Itanagar and she resided there with the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has constructed a boundary wall and has also constructed a room in the premises. It is also submitted that on 16.03.2025, the mother of the petitioner has expired. However, on a complaint made by the respondent no.4, the impugned notice was issued to Smti. Biri Mema (Byabang), the aunt of the petitioner on 19.03.2025 and served on 25.03.2025. Page No.# 3/4 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the notice dated 19.03.2025 is arbitrary and illegal. It is also submitted that the person in whose name the notice is issued, is not the occupant of the said premises, but it was his mother, who, when alive was the occupier of the premises and as the petitioner is in bereavement, Smti. Biri Mema (Byabang), aunt of the petitioner was looking after the premises. It is further submitted that according to the customary rites of the community of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be asked to vacate the said premises during the period of his bereavement. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner is seeking 2 (two) weeks’ time to make alternative arrangement. 5. It is also submitted that when the mother of the petitioner was alive, she had submitted a representation dated 06.02.2025 for allotment of the said quarter to her, which has not been disposed of. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the documents annexed to this writ petition and it is also submitted that the same quarter has been allotted to two persons by separate orders dated 25.09.2024 and 14.11.2024. 6. The learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate has opposed the prayer made in this writ petition. It is also submitted that if the two allotment orders dated 25.09.2024 and 14.11.2024 is perused, it will reveal that the order dated 25.09.2024 was for allotment of residential quarter no. 44(T-II) and that the allotment of 14.11.2024 was in respect of Govt. quarter no 43(T-II). It is also submitted that as the petitioner is not a Govt. servant, he has no right to occupy a Govt. quarter after his mother has expired. 7. On the examination of the materials available on record, it is not the case of the petitioner that he is a Govt. employee and has right to stay in any Govt. quarter. The mother of the petitioner is stated to have expired on Page No.# 4/4 16.03.2025 and therefore, the petitioner has no right to overstay in the quarter no. 43/Type-II at D-Sector, Itanagar. The claim that due to the last rites and the bereavement period arising of the death of his mother would also not entertain the petitioner to retain the Govt. quarter. Moreover, the application allegedly made by the mother of the petitioner, merits no consideration after her death. 8. Accordingly, the Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and to justify the holding over of the Govt. quarter bearing quarter no. 43/Type-II at D-Sector, Itanagar on any ground whatsoever. 9. Resultantly, the Court is disinclined to admit this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed at the motion stage without issuance of notice on the respondents. 10. The learned Govt. Advocate shall transmit a downloaded copy of this order to the concerned authorities for making it a part of their record. JUDGE Comparing Assistant