Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040014402024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/201/2024 Midu Miwu Son of Mudra Miwu, permanent resident of Village Abali @ Bali, Mipi circle, Anini, Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The Union of India and 9 Ors through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India, CGO Complex, New Delhi. 2:The Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Land Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Land Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Director General ITBP Age: 0 Occupation : MHA Govt of India Block 2 CGO Complex Lodhi Road Page No.# 2/4 New Delhi 110003 5:The DIG SHQ Age: 0 Occupation : Dibrugarh ITBP MHA Govt of India Mohanbari Dibrugarh District Assam 786012 6:The Inspector General Age: 0 Occupation : Northeast Frontier HQ ITB Police NHA Govt of India Khatting Hill Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh 791111 7:The Commandant Age: 0 Occupation : 9th BN ITB Police PO Tezu Lohit District Arunachal Pradesh 792001 8:The Assistant Commandant Age: 0 Occupation : 9th BN ITBP Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh 792101 9:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 10:The Commandant Page No.# 3/4 Age: 0 Occupation : 58th BN ITBP Force Post Roing District Lower Dibang Valley Arunachal Pradesh 79211 Advocate for the Petitioner : Sonam Tsomo, Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, SC (Land Management),Dugmar Kamduk,DSGI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 04-03-2025 Heard Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel for the applicant who submits that the applicant seeks impleadment of 58th BN, ITBP Force as respondent No. 10 since the 9th BN, ITBP was arrayed as respondent No. 7 and that the said Unit has moved to some other location. He submits that impleadment of 58th BN, ITBP is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. 2. Mr. M. Kato, learned Dy.S.G.I, on the other hand, submits that since the 9th BN, ITBP has already been made party respondent i.e. respondent No. 7, there is no requirement to implead 58th BN, ITBP since, the ITBP is one of the same authority only that different Units are under the command of separate Commanding Officer. 3. Upon hearing the learning counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the application so submitted and the objection submitted in writing by the respondents, the Court is inclined to allow this application since the 9th BN, ITBP is said to be replaced by the new Unit i.e. the 58th BN, ITBP, the impleadment of Page No.# 4/4 new Battalion is found to be proper. 4. In view of the above, the application for impleadment is, hereby, allowed, as prayed for. 5. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant