Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040014802026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WA/59/2026 Smti Monu Ngurang District Agriculture Officer, East Kameng District, Seppa, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 2 Ors represented by the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Agriculture Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:Smti Pai Pizi Yangfo Age: 0 Occupation : Zilla Parishad Member(ZPC) East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Regum Nabam, Rima Taipodia,Apra Linggi Advocate for the Respondent : Lissing Perme, SC (Agriculture) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Page No.# 2/3 Date : 08.09.2026 (S. K. Medhi, J.) Heard Shri R. Nabam, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri L. Perme, learned Standing Counsel for the Agriculture Department. 2. This intra-court appeal has been preferred against an order dated 20.08.2026, passed in WP(C) No.399(AP)/2026 whereby, the interim prayer has been declined. The challenge in the writ petition was against an order dated 04.08.2026 issued by the Department whereby, 39(thirty- nine) officers were transferred, including the petitioner. The petitioner was working as District Agriculture Officer, Seppa and has been transferred to Pasighat. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has an ailing son suffering from CKD (chronic kidney disease) and undergoing dialysis at Naharlagun. It is also submitted that the son had one transplant of the kidney and second transplant is also necessary and the appellant, who is a single mother is the potential doner. 4. Shri Perme, learned Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department has, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant has already been released and, in her place, the new incumbent has joined. He has also submitted that the affected incumbent has not been made a party respondent. 5. The scope of interference in intra-court appeal is limited and such interference is made only when the findings arrived at by the Single Bench is perverse. In the instant case, we have however, noticed that though the learned counsel has contended that there is urgent medical requirement in Page No.# 3/3 which the appellant is stated to be the potential doner for her son, those aspects were not adequately pleaded in the writ petition. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the pleadings in paragraphs-8 and 9, those are inadequate. We have also seen that the apparent consideration for rejecting the interim order was on the aspect that the appellant has not completed the normal tenure. 6. We are of the opinion that interest of justice would be served, if the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge with a request for a reconsideration. The appellant would be at the liberty to file interlocutory application and put the relevant facts on record which may be considered by the learned Single Judge while deciding the prayer for interim order. 7. The writ appeal stands disposed of. 8. The writ petition along with the interlocutory application, if filed may be listed immediately after filing of such interlocutory application. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by TAGE BUNYI Date: 2026.09.08 15:33:27 +05'30'