Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040014832026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/426/2026 Tapak Mra Son of Shri Tagu Mra, Village Ging, Limeking Circle, PO and PS Nacho, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 6 Ors represented by Secretary, Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Force Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Environment Forest and Climate Change Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Additinal Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Age: 0 Occupation : (Working Plan and Information Technology) Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Conservator of Forest Age: 0 Occupation : Northern Working Plan Van Vihar Itanagar Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Divisionla Forest Officer Page No.# 2/4 Age: 0 Occupation : Social Forest Division Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 6:The Range Forest Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Northern Working Plan Range-I Van Vihar Chimpu Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 7:The Range in Charge Age: 0 Occupation : northern Working Plan Range- I and II Northern Working Plan Chimpu Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Advocate for the Petitioner : Kago Taja, Kirmar Ado,L Koyu Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER Date : 09.09.2026 Heard Shri K. Taja, learned for the petitioner. Also heard Shri D. Kamduk, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Considering the subject matter involved, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. Page No.# 3/4 The challenge in this writ petition is against the action of the respondents directing the petitioner to vacate the quarter occupied by the petitioner. As per the facts projected, the petitioner, who is working as a Range Forest Officer (RFO), was transferred from Chimpu, Itanagar, to Kurung Kumey. Pursuant to such transfer, he was released on 02.01.2025. Shri K. Taja, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he has a school-going child studying in Class XII, who would be appearing in the Board examination, and also a child having autism undergoing therapy. Accordingly the quarter allocated to him at Chimpu was retained. However, without considering the aforesaid aspects, the impugned notice dated 21.08.2026 was issued, followed by another notice dated 24.08.2026. The learned counsel has submitted that there has been deduction on account of occupying the quarter at Chimpu, and that he has not taken any government accommodation at Kurung Kumey. He has also contended that though he was released on 02.01.2025, he was still holding the charge till July 2026. Per contra, Shri Kamduk, the learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the transfer order, being dated 17.12.2024, was followed by the petitioner being released on 02.01.2025. The petitioner has already been accommodated for a considerable period of one year and six months, taking into consideration the hardships projected by the petitioner. However, the petitioner is required to arrange for alternative accommodation, for which a period of one year and six months is more Page No.# 4/4 than enough. This Court is of the considered opinion that, though the petitioner may have hardships, since the transfer order is dated 17.12.2024 and he was released on 02.01.2025, the action of the respondent authorities in issuing the orders dated 21.08.2026 and 24.08.2026 cannot be faulted with. This Court is of the opinion that it finds force in the submission advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General that a period of one year and six months is a reasonable period to enable the petitioner to arrange for alternative accommodation, even in case there are personal hardships. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition to interfere. However, in the interest of justice, it is directed that the impugned orders dated 21.08.2026 and 24.08.2026 be kept in abeyance for a further period of 45 days, which shall expire on 28.10.2026. In the event the petitioner does not vacate the premises within the time stipulated, the authorities would be at liberty to take action in accordance with law. JUDGE Digitally signed by HAGE MEENA Date: 2026.09.09 17:14:06 +05'30'