Decided on May 02,2018

Techi Hemu Appellant
State Of Arunachal Pradesh And 21 Ors Represented By Secretary Respondents


P K Deka, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. A Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh. So far the respondents No. 4 to 22 are concerned, the present appellant as per the direction of this court vide order dated 10.04.2018 served the copy of the memo of appeal on Mr. V. Jamoh, learned Advocate at Itanagar Permanent Bench, Gauhati High Court who represents the present respondents No. 4 to 22 in WP(C) No. 735 (AP)/2017 pending before the learned Single Judge, Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Permanent Bench and in support of the said contention an affidavit was sworn which is on record. Considering the steps taken by the present appellants this court is satisfied to draw the presumption that service on the respondents No. 4 to 22 are duly served. However, on call none has entered appearance representing the said respondents No. 4 to 22.
(2.) The present appeal is against the order dated 08.02.2018 passed in I.A. No. 219/2017 in WP(C) No. 735 (AP)/2017 by the learned Single Bench, Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Permanent Bench. The present respondents No. 4 to 22 filed an application for their impleadment in the said pending writ petition which was registered as I.A. No. 219/2017. The present appellant, as the petitioner, preferred the writ petition against an order dated 25.10.2017 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Seijosa with respect to a plot of land thereby directing the appellant to maintain status quo till the dispute with respect to the land is resolved. Therein, the said respondents No. 4 to 22 preferred the impleadment application alleging that the said land was under their possession and as such they are necessary parties in the writ petition. The present appellant filed affidavit-in-opposition thereby disputing the claim of the respondents No. 4 to 22. The said impleadment application was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order in this writ appeal which was passed on 25.10.2017.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the writ petitioner preferred the present appeal challenging the said order dated 25.10.2017 on the grounds mainly that the learned Single Judge passed the order without giving any reason for impleading the said respondents No. 4 to 22.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.