Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010093292026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/156/2026 DR MAI KURU CAMDER S/O. LT. MAI TAR, PERMANENT R/O. MAI VILLAGE, DIST. KEYI PANYOR, ARUNACHAL PRADESH VERSUS NORTH EASTERN REGIONAL INSTITURE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (NERIST) AND 5 ORS REP. BY ITS BOARD OF MANAGEMENT, NIRJULI, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, PIN-791109 2:THE CHAIRMAN BOARD OF MANAGEMENT NORTH EASTERN REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NIRJULI ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN-791109 3:THE FACT FINDING COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS MEMBERS NAMELY PROF. (MRS) M.A. CHOUDHURI NIT NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA AND DR. S. GOVERDHAN RAO FOMER REGISTRAR NIT WARANGAL ANDHRA PRADESH NOTICE TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE DIRECTOR NERIST NIRJULI ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN-791109 Page No.# 2/4 4:THE DIRECTOR NORTH EASTERN REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NIRJULI ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN-791109 5:PROF. NARENDRANATH S. DIRECTOR NERIST NIRJULI ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN-791109 6:SMTI. TOKO YAJUR W/O. SRI MAI KURU KAMDIR R/O. NIRJULI VILL. I P/O. AND P/S. NIRJULI DIST. PAPUM PARE ARUNACHAL PRADES Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B KAUSHIK, MS A M DCOSTA,K BHARALI,MR. S HAZARIKA,P LHAMU,MR. P BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 15.05.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, who has approached this Court due to the prayer for stay not being granted by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 194(AP)/2026. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is working under the respondent no.1 as a Registrar and had asked for permission to marry a second wife, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 21(2)(a) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, Page No.# 3/4 1964. The permission for contracting a second marriage was approved by the respondent no.2 and the same was communicated to the petitioner by the respondent no.4 on 24.09.2025.Consequently, the appellant got married on 10.10.2025. The director was then informed of the second marriage on 16.10.2025 with the Marriage Certificate. However, on multiple complaints being filed by the first wife against the appellant with regard to his second marriage, one of them being that the appellant had already married a second wife on 28-12-2023, the permission given for contracting a second marriage was withdrawn and cancelled by the Director, vide order dated 17.04.2026. 3. The impugned order dated 17.04.2026 states that multiple complaints with supporting documents had been submitted by the appellant’s first wife, raising serious objections to the second marriage and requesting initiation of appropriate disciplinary proceedings. On re-examining the matter in the light of the said complaints, it had been established that the approval given to the appellant, to marry a second wife, had been done without proper verification of material facts, including non-disclosure of having contracted a second marriage on 28.12.2023 without prior permission. Further, the order dated 24.09.2025 had not been made in consonance with the approval accorded by the respondent no.2. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the learned Single judge, vide WP(C) 194/2026, praying for setting aside the order dated 17.04.2026, on the ground that no prior notice had been issued to the appellant before issuance of the second notice. 5. The appellant’s counsel submits that the appellant did not have a second marriage on 28.12.2023 and he had married his second wife only on 10.10.2025, after permission had been given. He further submits that while the Competent Authority Page No.# 4/4 had given permission to the appellant to have a second wife, which was communicated through the Director, the Director without taking the approval of the Competent Authority, had withdrawn and cancelled the permission given vide the impugned order dated 17.04.2026, which is beyond his competence. 6. The appellant's counsel also submits that an FIR has been filed by the first wife against the appellant and a Charge-sheet under Section 85 and Section 351(3) BNS has also been submitted by the Police in this regard. 7. On considering the issues raised by the appellant, it appears that no notice had been issued to the appellant prior to cancellation of the permission given to the appellant to re-marry, vide communication dated 24.09.2025. The appellant should have been given an opportunity of being heard with regard to the allegations made by his first wife to the authorities and prior to the respondent no.4 coming to any decision, regarding as to whether there had been any non-disclosure of facts by the appellant. However, the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice, which has caused serious prejudice to the appellant. The impugned order has basically decided the fate of the appellant without issuing any notice. Though the matter may be proceeded with by the learned Single Judge on the merits of the issues raised, unless some protection is granted to the appellant, as a second marriage has already taken place, serious prejudice would be caused to the appellant. Thus, till a decision is taken by the learned Single Judge on the writ petition, no coercive action should be taken upon the appellant pursuant to the impugned order dated 17.04.2026 issued by the respondent no.4. 8. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant