P.K. Musahary, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, for all the Official respondents.

2. The challenge made in the writ petition is to order dated 26.11.2009 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo, whereby the PAs/PIs of the Deputy Commissioner's office of West Siang District, Aalo, have been accommodated in the District Keba Dere authorizing them to take part in the discussion of the Circle Level/District Level Keba, to ensure order dated impartial conducting of the Keba, without any authority to interfere in the day-to-day functioning of the Keba and make any final decision of the Keba.

3. Mr. R. Saikia, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that by the impugned order aforementioned, the District Authority has given power to the PAs/PIs to participate in the deliberation of the Keba and in taking the final decision by the Keba. The impugned order, according to him, runs counter to the judgment dated 19.6.2008 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) 347(AP) 2006 which was upheld vide judgment and order dated 17.6.2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in a Writ Appeal No. 36(AP) 2008.

4. Mr. R. Saikia, learned Counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to directions contained in judgment dated 19.6.2008 passed by the Single Bench in W.P. (C) 347 (AP) 2006 to the effect that :

...It is also to be clarified herein that the PAs/PIs should not be directed to supervise the Kebang/Keba Meetings but be allowed to participate only if invited for recording statements and/or interpreting the views of the Keba members to the District Administration, if called upon by the Village Institutions.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners further draws the attention of this Court to observations made by the Division Bench in judgment and order dated 17.6.2009 passed in W.A. 36 (AP) 2009, which reads thus :

10. ...In our considered opinion, the word 'assist' itself denotes giving the views of the administration only when sought for by the village authorities. Certainly it does not confer any supervisory role in the decision making process. We are also of the view that if PAs/PIs are allowed to supervise Kebang proceedings as a Government Nominee, it would certainly influence the proceedings, wherein the disputes are resolved as per local customs and it would amount to eroding/diluting the independent character of 'Kebang'. This can not be permitted under the existing law and the scheme of decision through 'Kebang'.

5. Mr. R.H. Nabang, learned Senior Government Advocate, referring to Government notification dated 22.12.1965 (Annexure III to the writ petition) submits that although an option has been given to the village institutions to invite or not to invite the PAs/PIs, the representatives of the Government, namely, the District Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district, has been given the power of deputing PAs/PIs for taking part in local village discussions where they may give the institutions the benefit of Government sponsored opinion. According to the learned Senior Government Advocate, there is no bar in allowing the presence of PAs/PIs in the village Keba and taking part in the discussion/deliberation for better administration of justice at the village level.

6. Since this Court has already given specific directions/clarifications on earlier occasions, as stated above, I do not feel it necessary to reopen the issues that were raised and settled earlier. This Court is now concerned only with a question as to whether the impugned order dated 26.11.2009 is in consonance with the directions/clarifications given by this Court. The impugned order dated 26.11.2009, is reproduced below, for ready reference :

Government of Arunachal Pradesh

Office of the Deputy Commissioner West

Siang District, Aalo

No. WS/JK/GBs/2006-07

dated Aalo the 26t