Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040015532025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/228/2025 Tagri Takup and Anr Son of Tagri Tagung, resident of Police Colony, GTC, Near Balwadi School, East Siang, Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Ninya Angu Age: Occupation : Son of Late Goni Angu R/o Talem Nyitan GTC Near Football Playground East Siang Pasighat Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS Apex Professional University and 11 Ors Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh, Represented by its Registrar, Pasighat, East Siang, District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Chancellor Age: 0 Occupation : Apex University Pasighat East Siang District Pasighat Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Vice Chancellor Age: 0 Occupation : Apex University Pasighat East Siang District Pasighat Page No.# 2/5 Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Registrar Age: 0 Occupation : Apex University Pasighat East Siang District Pasighat Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Arunachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions (Regulatory Commission Act 2017) 6:Dr Geyin Boli Age: 0 Occupation : Chief Proctor Apex Professional University Pasighat Smart City Arunachal Pradesh. 7:Dr Jyotstna Raj Age: 0 Occupation : HOD Faculty of Law and Forensic Apex Professional University Arunachal Pradesh. 8:Smti Preeti Solanki Age: 0 Occupation : Presiding Officer Chairman ICC Apex Professional University Pasighat Arunachal Pradesh. 9:The Chairman Age: 0 Occupation : Standing Committee on Student Discipline Page No.# 3/5 Apex Professional University Pasighat Arunachal Pradesh. 10:The DGP Age: 0 Occupation : PHQ Itanagar Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. 791111 11:The SP Age: 0 Occupation : Pasighat East Siang District Pasighat Arunachal Pradesh 791102 12:The Officer in Charge Age: 0 Occupation : Women Police Station Pasighat Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Sonam Tsomo, Advocate for the Respondent : Jyoti Zongluju, Page No.# 4/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 24.09.2025 Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. P. Wangpan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Ms. P. Sangeeta, learned Government Advocate for State respondent Nos. 10, 11 & 12. 2. This application is filed seeking leave to file affidavit-in-reply in WP(C) No. 46(AP)/2023 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4. 3. Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that on previous occasions, the proxy counsel sought an adjournment on behalf of the petitioner, but inadvertently failed to pray for time to file a rejoinder affidavit. Consequently, this Court, by an order dated 02.04.2025, having noted that no rejoinder affidavit was filed, presumed that party had waived their right to file rejoinder affidavit and accordingly directed that no affidavit shall form part of the record without leave of the Court. He submits that due to inadvertent mistake committed by the proxy counsel and in view of the order of this Court, the applicant is not able to file rejoinder affidavit. Therefore, he prays for grant of leave to file rejoinder affidavit. 4. Mr. P. Wangpan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, vehemently objected to the prayer for filing rejoinder affidavit as the applicant/writ petitioner has failed to file the rejoinder affidavit and this Court, vide order dated 02.04.2025, has rightly presumed that the applicant/petitioner Page No.# 5/5 has waived his right. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the omission was inadvertent, although the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 opposed the same and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to allow this interlocutory application by granting leave to file rejoinder affidavit. Accordingly, leave granted. 6. Interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant