Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040003242026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/88/2026 Binsa Chiba Son of Late Sita Chiba, resident of Village Taimna, PO Hayuliang, PS Khupa, Anjaw District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The Member Secretary and 2 Ors 2 Chaglagam Zilla Parishad, Anjaw District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The District President Age: 0 Occupation : BJP Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Hawai Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Mitem Ratan, K Tayeng,Punyo Harming,Idak Bam Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Anu Zongluju,Wanglak Wangsa,Moni Bori,Uttam Bori Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 12.06.2026 Heard Mr. K. Tayeng, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 3 as well as Mr. Uttam Bori, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he is an elected Gram Panchayat Member from 4 Kromna Gram Panchayat under Taimna Constituency. The said Gram Panchayat consists of four elected Gram Panchayat Members, out of whom one elected Gram Panchayat Member would become the Chairperson of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner, who is a member of a particular political party, offered his candidature for the post of Chairperson of the 4 Kromna Gram Panchayat. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw District, Hawai, by the impugned order dated 06.02.2026, declared the petitioner to be disqualified from the membership of the said Gram Panchayat by applying the disqualification clause under the Arunachal Pradesh Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 2003, read with Clause 3(1)(b) and (c), and the disqualification was ordered pursuant to powers under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said 2003 Act, read with Section 4 of the Arunachal Pradesh Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) (Amendment) Act, 2006. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a member of the said political party, and when he offered his candidature for the post of Chairperson of the said Gram Panchayat, he did not act against the said political party, and his candidature was offered as a member Page No.# 3/6 of the said political party. It is stated that the Mandal President of the concerned political party did not have any authority to issue any such party whip or to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner. It is submitted that there was an inherent requirement of issuance of a show-cause notice to the petitioner before taking any drastic step of disqualification. It is submitted that the Constitution and Rules of the said political party also envisaged granting an opportunity of hearing to the concerned person before taking any disciplinary action against a member of the said political party. 4. Accordingly, by relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Rimso Bellai and 2 Ors. vs. The Deputy Commissioner and 5 Ors., W.P.(C) No. 49 of 2026, decided on 08.04.2026, it is submitted that the action taken against the petitioner without following the principles of natural justice, by not issuing a prior show-cause notice, renders the impugned order dated 06.02.2026 liable to be set aside and quashed. 5. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Advocate has submitted that as the respondent No. 2, being the Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw District, Hawai, was informed of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by the concerned political party for anti-party activities and for defection by disobeying the party whip dated 03.01.2026, the said authority, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said 2003 Act, held the petitioner to be disqualified from the membership of the concerned Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, it was ordered that the petitioner would cease to hold the office of Gram Panchayat Member. Accordingly, it is submitted that on the facts of this case, as the issue of defection was raised, the decision of this Court in the case of Rimso Bellai and 2 Ors. (supra) would have no application. Page No.# 4/6 6. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that no relief has been claimed against respondent No. 2. However, he supports the submissions made by the learned Senior Government Advocate. 7. The learned Senior Government Advocate has submitted, on a query of the Court, that no Rules have been framed under the 2003 Act. 8. In the case of Rimso Bellai and 2 Ors. (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court had taken note of the defence that there is no specific provision in the 2003 Act requiring issuance of a show-cause notice or providing a personal hearing. However, the Court was of the view that the principles of natural justice are ingrained in the realm of administrative and quasi-judicial matters. 9. In this regard, the learned Senior Government Advocate has referred to paragraph 3 of the said judgment and submitted that the facts of the said case are distinguishable. The three petitioners therein were elected from 11/2, 11/3 and 11/4 Gram Panchayat Constituencies in Anjaw District. The petitioners therein had merged into the majority and had formed a new political party. Accordingly, it is submitted that if they had formed a majority, it would have been a different matter. However, in the present case, despite the party whip, the petitioner had offered his candidature, and therefore, the issuance of a show-cause notice would have been an empty formality. 10. In this case, the petitioner has annexed to the writ petition the party whip dated 03.01.2026. The petitioner has also annexed to the writ petition an expulsion order issued by the concerned political party's Mandal President dated 10.01.2026 on account of breach of party discipline. Page No.# 5/6 11. The petitioner has also annexed a copy of the application for disqualification issued by the Member Secretary of the 2-Chaglagam Zila Parishad Constituency, by which an application dated 10.01.2026 was forwarded to the District Election Officer, Anjaw District, Hawai, for treating the petitioner as having incurred disqualification on account of defection, having been found guilty of disobeying the party whip. Therefore, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts in the case of Rimso Bellai and 2 Ors. (supra). 12. Therefore, with all respect to the decision of this Court in the case of Rimso Bellai and 2 Ors. (supra), though the Court had emphasized adherence to the principles of natural justice, in the present case the issuance of a show- cause notice to the petitioner would have been an empty formality, as the concerned political party had moved the authorities for disqualification of the petitioner on account of disobedience of the party whip. Moreover, the concerned political party had also expelled the petitioner from the party for anti- party activities and specifically for disobeying the party whip. 13. Therefore, in the present case, as there existed a party whip and the petitioner had disobeyed the said party whip, and as the petitioner had also been expelled from the concerned political party, which had moved the authorities for his disqualification, the impugned order No. ANJ/ PR/ ELN-20/ 2025-26/9147-54 dated 06.02.2026 requires no interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 15. It is clarified that nothing contained in this order shall be construed to mean that the ratio laid down in the case of Rimso Bellai and 2 Ors. (supra) has Page No.# 6/6 been diluted by this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant