Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040001492026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/38/2026 M/s Capital Agro Forestry Nursery proprietor Shri Chaong Yangda, permanent resident of Papu Nallah, PO and PS Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors through the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Chief Conservator of Forest Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Conservator of Forest (Planning and FDA) Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Advocate for the Petitioner : Tsering Gyatso, Phurpa Tsering,Tayom Gamoh,Logsang Yountan,Dejum Tally Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 04.02.2026 Heard Shri T. Gyatso, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has filed this writ petition with the following prayer: “ PRAYER In the premises aforesaid it is most humbly prayed that your lordship would be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, and issue rule upon the respondents to show cause as to why: i. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued, directing the respondent authorities to comply with the MOU dated 25.11.2021 to mutually appoint a neutral arbitrator and initiate arbitration proceeding within a stipulated time period. ii. And a direction to the respondent authorities to dispose of the notice dated 24.12.2025 within a fixed time period. iii. And/ or any other writ, direction, reliefs, or order(s) may be passed in favour of the petitioner which may be deemed just and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.” 2. As would reveal from the prayer quoted hereinabove, the primary relief sought for is regarding the appointment of a neutral Arbitrator and initiate the arbitration proceeding for resolution of the dispute. This Court has also noted that under Clause 7 of the Contract entered into between the parties, there is a Page No.# 3/3 provision for arbitration. 3. This Court is of the view that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for an avenue to approach this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator and accordingly, the writ petition cannot be maintained with the aforesaid prayer. 4. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. 5. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file appropriate application for appointment of an Arbitrator, if so advised in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant