Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040004952025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/144/2025 Smti Rebeka Panyang and 2 Ors Deputy Chief Councilor cum Councilor, Ward No.04, Pasighat Municipal Council, Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Yalop Nyigang Yomso Age: Occupation : Councilor Ward No.01 Pasighat Municipal Council Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Smti Ponung Radeng Saring Age: Occupation : Councilor Ward No.05 Pasighat Municipal Council Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented by the Chief Secretary cum Appellate Authority, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:Mirem Komut Age: 0 Occupation : President/ General (G/S) State BJP Unit Arunachal Pradesh East Siang District Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara, Pondit Ronya,Kirmani Lollen,Terji Kamchi,Taba Tokur,Khoda Apa,Gamken Bam Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 01.04.2025 Heard Mr. G. Bam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Tapin, learned senior Govt. advocate for the respondent no.1. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner projects that the proceedings of Appeal No. 1/2024, pending for disposal before the Appellate Authority-cum- Chief Secretary, State of Arunachal Pradesh (respondent no.1) is not maintainable and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 3. It is projected that the said appeal was filed on 18.11.2024 and as the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Members of Arunachal Pradesh Urban Local Bodies (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Act, 2014 envisages that the appeal should be disposed of within 90 days, the petitioners project that the present appeal proceeding is liable to be dropped and therefore, the proceeding be stayed. 4. A preliminary objection as to maintainability of this writ petition is raised by the learned Senior Govt. advocate on the ground that the three petitioners herein had earlier approached this Court against the order dated 01.11.2024 passed by the appellate authority in Appeal No. 1/2024 wherein the petitioners had made a prayer, amongst others, for passing appropriate orders Page No.# 3/5 in accordance with Sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act. It is submitted that the pendency of the earlier writ petition has been suppressed by the petitioners. To ascertain the prayers made in the WP(C) 594(AP)/2024, the records was called for from the Registry and the same is perused. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present writ petition has been filed on two grounds, firstly, that the said Appeal No. 1/2024 was filed by a third party who is not a Ward Commissioner and appeal at his instance was not maintainable and secondly, that as the appeal was not disposed of within 90 days, the appeal is liable to be quashed. 6. The three prayers made in WP(C) 594(AP)/2024 is quoted below: I. A writ in the nature of certiorari shall not be issued to quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority: Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar in violation of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Members of Arunachal Pradesh Urban Local Bodies (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Act, 2014. II. A writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued directing the Appellate Authority rescind/forebear the impugned order dated 10.12.2024 and thereafter pass appropriate order/orders in accordance with of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Members of Arunachal Pradesh Urban Local Bodies (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Act, 2014. III. And upon cause or causes if any as may be shown by the respondents, and on perusal of the records of the case and upon hearing the parties, your lordship may be pleased to make the rule absolute, and/ or pass such other order/orders as your lordship may deed fir and proper. 7. From the above, it appears that the prayer no.2 of the petitioner is to direct the respondent no.1 to pass orders in accordance with Sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act. We also take note of the fact that the appellant at whose instance the Appeal no. 1/2024 was filed is arrayed in WP(C) 594(AP)/2024 as respondent no.3. Therefore, in the earlier writ petition, the issue of maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the respondent Page No.# 4/5 no.3 was not raised. Accordingly, the present writ petition wherein it is projected that the appeal by a third party would not be maintainable is hit by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, which provides as follows: “2. Suit to include the whole claim.—(1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish and portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. (2) Relinquishment of part of claim.—Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. (3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs.—A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.” 8. The same principle is also applicable in this writ petition. A party who was already filed a writ petition cannot be permitted to file another writ petition to assail the proceedings on a new ground. The prayer so made in this subsequent writ petition is also found to be hit by Explanation IV to Section 11 of the CPC, which provides as follows: “Explanation IV- Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.” 9. Therefore, the objection with regard to maintainability, as raised by the learned senior Govt. advocate is accepted and the present writ petition on a new ground of attack is held to be not maintainable. 10. As regards the second issue raised i.e. of the order in appeal was not passed within 90 days from the date of filing, the proceedings should be quashed, appears to be a proposition cannot be accepted, there may be several laws which prescribe a particular time limit for decision to be taken and merely Page No.# 5/5 because a decision is not taken in the prescribed time could not make the concerned authority as an authority without jurisdiction. No decision of any authority has been placed on record to show that if the disposal is not made within the time allowed by a particular statute, the proceeding must be deemed to have been dropped. Therefore, insofar as the second ground of attack to the proceedings of Appeal No. 1/2024 is concerned the same is not found be acceptable proposition. 11. Be that as it may, as the maintainability of the writ petition is questioned by the learned senior Govt. advocate having been accepted, the present writ petition being barred by the principles of constructive res judicata as well as under the requirement of Order II Rule 2 CPC, the writ petition stands dismissed at the motion stage without issuance of notice on the respondents. 12. Under the circumstances, we refrain from imposing a cost of the petitioners. JUDGE Comparing Assistant