Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040007012026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/219/2026 Smti Teli Papi Wife of Teli Tamar, Kolma Nirjuli, PO and PS Nirjuli, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 791109 VERSUS The State of AP and 2 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Home Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commisisoner Age: 0 Occupation : Capital Complex Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Nikita Danggen, Baby Palon,Atong Nangu,Nani Kuru,Kirpi Nyorak,Phunai Wangpan,Oken Duggong Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 19-05-2026 Heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for all the respondents. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 06.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner (Home), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the respondent No. 2 herein, whereby it is decided that weekly markets in the Itanagar Capital Region (ICR) and Papum Pare District shall be allowed only once in a week, i.e., on Saturday and the consequential order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Region, Itanagar, the respondent No. 3 herein, restricting the operation of weekly markets only on Saturday. 3. Having considered that the impugned orders, which are the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition, have already been set aside by this Court in respect of the petitioners in those cases and considering the judicial discipline and propriety, as well as the submission of the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, this writ petition is taken up and disposed of at the motion stage itself. 4. The petitioner is the owner of a plot of land measuring about 14,494 Sq. mtrs. situated at Kolma Village, Nirjuli, who has been issued a Trading Licence by the competent authority to run business/trade thereon in the name and style of “M/s Sunday Market and Swimming Pool”, valid up to 25.06.2026. The State respondents, particularly the Department of Home, after deliberation on the issue regarding operation of weekly markets in the Itanagar Capital Region and Page No.# 3/6 Papum Pare District pursuant to representations submitted by certain organisations vide representation dated 28.10.2025, decided to permit operation of weekly markets only once in a week instead of on multiple days, on the ground that such operation on multiple days would increase the possibility of entry of unauthorized immigrants into the State. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Home), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, issued the order dated 06.03.2026 directing that weekly markets in the Itanagar Capital Region and Papum Pare District be conducted only once in a week, i.e., on Saturday. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar, vide consequential order dated 09.03.2026, restricted the operation of weekly markets within the Itanagar Capital Region only to Saturday, thereby also affecting the operation of the petitioner’s weekly Sunday market at Nirjuli. 5. Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned orders restricting the operation of weekly markets to once a week, i.e., Saturday, would seriously affect the livelihood of the vendors who are dependent solely on such weekly markets. It is further submitted that, in compliance with the SOP issued by the competent authority, all requisite documents along with the necessary undertaking have already been furnished to the Deputy Commissioner, Capital, for operation of the weekly market at Nirjuli on Sunday. It is submitted that the impugned orders have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 6. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel, while referring to the orders passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 06.05.2026 in WP(C) No. 188/2026 (Teli Rontu Camdir vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.) and dated 11.05.2026 in WP(C) No. 101/2026 (Gichik Tama vs. The State of Page No.# 4/6 Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.), submits that the impugned orders, particularly the order dated 09.03.2026, have already been set aside by this Court in the said cases. She submits that, although the said orders have been set aside but only in respect of the petitioners therein, the petitioner in the present case being similarly situated is therefore entitled to similar relief in this proceedings. 7. Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for all the respondents, in his usual fairness submits that as the impugned order dated 09.03.2026, which is also the subject matter of challenge in Teli Rontu Camdir (supra), has already been set aside by the Coordinate Bench on the ground that it was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties, the petitioner herein, being similarly situated, is also entitled to be extended the same relief. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 9. At the first blush, the decision of the authorities, particularly the Department of Home, appears to be genuine, as the operation of weekly markets on multiple days may increase the possibility of entry of unauthorised immigrants. However, the affected parties, particularly petty traders and vendors who are entirely dependent on the operation of weekly markets, ought to have been afforded at least a minimum opportunity of hearing, as the impugned action directly affects their livelihood, they being solely dependent on such operations of weekly market. 10. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Teli Rontu Camdir (supra), having considered that the petitioners therein were not afforded due opportunity of hearing, interfered with the impugned order dated 09.03.2026. Page No.# 5/6 The relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein under: “7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and in view of the admitted position that the impugned order dated 09.03.2026, has been issued by the respondent No. 3 viz. Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the same cannot be sustained being in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.03.2026, issued by the respondent No. 3 viz. Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar insofar as it affects the petitioner, is set aside. 9. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar, is at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering all relevant aspects. 10. It is made clear that till such fresh decision is taken, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue operating the weekly market in terms of the earlier order dated 10.09.2025, subject to compliance of applicable SOPs.” 11. Perusal of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid case reflects that the impugned order put to challenge in the present writ petition has already been set aside in respect of the petitioners therein on the ground that they were not afforded an opportunity of hearing. 12. Having considered that the impugned orders in the present proceedings have already been set aside in respect of the petitioners in those cases and considering the judicial discipline and propriety, I deem it appropriate to extend similar relief to the present petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by interfering with the order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Region, Itanagar, restricting the operation of weekly markets in respect of the weekly market at D-Sector, Nirjuli (Yama Market), run by the petitioner. 13. However, as provided in the case of Teli Rontu Camdir (supra), the Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar, shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order Page No.# 6/6 in accordance with law, considering the larger public interest, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further, as held in the aforesaid case, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue the operation of the weekly market on Sunday in terms of the trading licence, subject to compliance with the applicable SOP(s). 14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant