Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040003692026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/101/2026 Gichik Tama Son of Gichik Tanang, resident of Dokusu, Zoo Road, Gohpur, PO Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar. 2:The Commissioner Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Home Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Capital Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Itanagar Municipal Corporation Itanagar Advocate for the Petitioner : Teto Taba, L Koyu,Punung Borang,C Ering,Nimcha Hondique,Nang walika Jenow,Begi Taba Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 11.05.2026 Heard Mr. T. Taba, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for all the Page No.# 2/3 respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 09.03.2026, issued by the respondent No. 3/ the Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar, whereby, it has been directed that weekly market in the Itanagar Capital Region shall be operated only on Saturday in terms of the Government decision dated 06.03.2026. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier by issuing the Trading License dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Commissioner, Itanagar Municipal Corporation, the petitioner was granted permission to operate a weekly market at Colony Dokosu, Zoo Road, Gohpur, Town-Itanagar on Tuesday. However, by the impugned order dated 09.03.2026, issued by the respondent No. 3, the conduct of the weekly market in the Itanagar Capital Region has been restricted to Saturday only. The aforesaid impugned order has been assailed on the ground that it has been issued without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by issuing the said impugned order, the petitioner has been adversely affected as the same was issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereby violated the principles of natural justice. 5. Mr. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate fairly submits that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to issuance of the impugned order dated 09.03.2026. 6. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the Page No.# 3/3 parties and in view of the admitted position that the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 has been issued by the respondent No. 3/the 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. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 issued by the respondent No. 3 viz. The Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar insofar as it affects the petitioner, is set aside. 8. 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. 9. 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 01.04.2025, subject to compliance of applicable SOPs. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. Comparing Assistant