Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 3559
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Robin Phukan, J
Tana Hide and Anr – Appellant
Versus
The State of AP and 3 Ors – Respondent
WP(C)/234/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nabam Saha
For the Respondents: GA (AP)
An administrative order that violates natural justice principles, including failure to provide notice and hearing, is subject to stay by the court.
Headnote:This case involves a challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an order by the District Magistrate, Papum Pare District, suspending weekly markets and cancelling related permits. The order, dated 16.05.2025, violated principles of natural justice by not giving the petitioners any notice or opportunity to be heard, thus affecting their right to livelihood under Article 21. The court stayed the impugned order pending further consideration. The primary issues include the validity of the order and compliance with due process. The court noted the lack of notice and hearing, emphasizing procedural irregularities.
Result: The impugned order dated 16.05.2025, stands stayed till returnable date.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. violation of procedural norms in administrative orders. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments concerning expiry of license and party inclusions. (Para 5) |
| 3. interim stay due to violation of natural justice. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER
Date : 30.05.2025 Heard Mr. N. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. P.
Sangeeta, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the correctness or otherwise of the order No. PP/JUD-0878/2012(Pt), dated 16.05.2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Papum Pare District, Yupia.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 16.05.2025, the District Magistrate, Papum Pare District, Yupia has suspended all the weekly markets operating within the administrative jurisdiction of Papum Pare district (rural) until further notice, and also cancelled all permits/licences issued to individuals, associations or vendors for the conduct of local weekly markets, within Papum Pare District (rural) with immediate effect.
4. Mr. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Magistrate, Papum Pare District, Yupia has passed the impugned order dated 16.05.2025, on the basis of the minutes of the meeting held on 30.04.2025, under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Minister (Home), Government of Arunachal Pradesh to review the implementation of Inner Line Permit (ILP) system in the state. Mr. Saha also submits that by passing the impugned order, the District Magistrate has cancelled all permits/licences issued to individuals, associations or vendors for the conduct of local weekly markets within Papum Pare District (rural) with immediate effect, and while doing so, the District Magistrate has not followed the procedure and he has not given any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and also not given any notice, and that the cancellation of trade licence of the petitioners and suspension of weekly markets, affects the right to livelihood of the petitioners and thereby violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, it is contended that the impugned order may be stayed till disposal of this petition.
5. Ms. Sangeeta, learned Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the licence of the petitioner No. 1 expired one day’s back, and also the petitioners have enclosed one order passed by the Deputy Commissioner Capital, Itanagar, Papum Pare District (City), dated 30.04.2025, but the said Deputy Commissioner Capital, Itanagar, Papum Pare District (City) has not been arrayed as a party in this petition. Ms. Sangeeta further submits that she may be granted some time to obtain instruction from the respondent authorities.
6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 16.05.2025, and the minutes of Meeting dated 30.04.2025, under the Chairmanship of Home Minister.
7. It appears that the impugned order dated 16.05.2025, is passed on the basis of the minutes of the meeting held on 30.04.2025, under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Minister (Home), Government of Arunachal Pradesh to review the implementation of Inner Line Permit (ILP) system in the state. It also appears from the impugned order dated 16.05.2025, that before suspending all the weekly markets operating within the jurisdiction of Papum Pare District (rural) and cancelling all permits/licences issued to individuals, associations or vendors for the conduct of local weekly markets within Papum Pare District (rural), the petitioners were not given any notice and also no opportunity of being heard was given to them. It is the categorical contention of the petitioners that by the aforementioned impugned order, the right to livelihood, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is violated.
8. The submissions so advanced by the learned counse
