Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040001892026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/49/2026 Rimso Bellai and 2 Ors Son of Shri Kamgiso Bellai, Broptong, PO Hayuliang, Anjaw District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Babenso Bellai Age: Occupation : Son of Late Alatso Bellai Kasonglat PO Hayuliang Anajw District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Smti Betulu Chikro Bellai Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Balum Bella Goiliang PO Hayuliang Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The Deputy Commissioner and 5 Ors Hawai, Anjaw District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Returning Officer cum Secretary Panchayat Raj Age: 0 Occupation : 1 Hayuliang Goiliang ZP Constituency Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/7 3:The Member Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : ZP Block Hayuliang Goiliang Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:Bakhetso Tawsik Age: 0 Occupation : District President Bharatiya Janata Party Hawai Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Sogam Dimha Age: 0 Occupation : The Mandal President Bharatiya Janata Party Hayuliang Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:The State of AP Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Secretary Panchayati Raj Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Debo K Deori, Rajen Deori Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Anu Zongluju,Rimi Singh,Wanglak Wangsa,Moni Bori,Uttam Bori,Wanglak Wangsa,Moni Bori,Kamal Saxena B E F O R E Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Advocates for the petitioner: Shri DK Deori Advocates for the respondents: Shri Y. Riram, GA, AP Shri U. Bori, R. 4 & 5 Page No.# 3/7 Date of hearing and Judgment : 08.04.2026 Judgment & Order (oral) Heard Shri DK Deori, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri Y. Riram, learned Government Advocate, AP and Shri U. Bori, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 & 5. 2. Considering the subject matter involved and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. Suffice it to mention that the primary ground on which the challenge is based has been dealt with in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 1. 3. Bereft of details, the facts, as projected in the writ petition is that the 3 petitioners were elected from 11/2, 11/3 and 11/4 Gram Panchayat Constituencies in the district of Anjaw. The petitioners had merged into the majority and had formed a new political party. On the aforesaid ground, the impugned order dated 06.02.2026 has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw, who disqualified the petitioners from the membership of the Gram Panchayat. 4. Shri Deori, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that without even going into any other aspects, the impugned order is unsustainable in law inasmuch as, no prior notice or show-cause was issued to the petitioners and therefore there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He has submitted that it is a sacrosanct requirement of law to give an opportunity to the persons who would be adversely affected by any action touching upon his rights. Page No.# 4/7 5. Shri Riram, learned Government Advocate, by referring to the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent no.1 on 04.04.2026, has fairly submitted that it is indeed a fact that no prior notice was issued to the petitioners. He has however justified the action as it is barred in law to shift from one party to the other after the elections. 6. Shri Bori, learned counsel for the private respondents, has however supported the impugned action and has submitted that it is justified under the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court has noted that the primary ground of challenge is with regard to the non-issuance of any prior notice or show-cause before taking the impugned action of their disqualifications. In this connection, the said aspect which has been dealt with in the affidavit filed by the respondent no. 1 in paragraph 15 is to be noted, which reads as follows: “15. That with regards to the statement made in paragraph-16 of the writ petition, the answering respondent begs to state that the matter relates to the concerned political party. There is no specific provision in the Act requiring the Deputy Commissioner to issue a show cause notice or provide personal hearing in such cases.” 8. The defence taken in the affidavit is that there is no specific provision in the Act to issue show-cause notice or provide personal hearing. This Court is however of the view that the principles of natural justice are ingrained in the realm of administrative and quasi-judicial matters. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgment has emphasized the requirement of adhering to the principles of natural justice in administrative and Page No.# 5/7 quasi-judicial proceedings. Certain observations made in the case of Uma Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in AIR 2009 SC 2375 would be beneficial which are as follows: “6. Natural justice is another name for commonsense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a commonsense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form. 7. The expressions "natural justice" and "legal justice" do not present a water-tight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law. As Lord Buckmaster said, no form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigants' defence. 8. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must Page No.# 6/7 be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the "Magna Carta". The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to "vocate, interrogate and adjudicate". In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works [(1863) 143 ER 414], the principle was thus stated: ‘Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence. "Adam"says God, "where art thou? hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat’.” 10. Since the action has an adverse effect on the petitioners, an opportunity would be mandatory to be given which admittedly has not been done. This Court is therefore of the view that without even going into the other aspects of the matter, the impugned order is unsustainable on the grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.02.2026 is interfered with and set aside. It is however clarified that the present interference is only on the grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice and not touching upon Page No.# 7/7 the inter se merits of the contesting parties. 12. The writ petition stands allowed in the manner indicated above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant