Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 610 (GAU)

State Of Ap v. Mihin Laling

2020-07-01

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Mr. K. Ete, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh for the Review Petitioners. Also heard Mr. Subu Koyang for the writ petitioner/ respondent. 2. Review Petition No. 3 (AP)/2020 has been filed by the State of Arunachal Pradesh represented by the Secretary (Land Management), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, while Review Petition No. 4 (AP)/2020 has been filed by the Secretary to the Governor, representing the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh. 3. Both the review petitions have been filed against the Order dated 17.02.2020 issued by this Court in WP(C) 61(AP)/2020, wherein this Court had directed the Secretary to the Governor, representing the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh to decide the appeal dated 27.08.2018 filed by the writ petitioner/ respondent, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order dated 17.02.2020 passed in WP(C) No. 61(AP)/2020. 4. The learned Senior Addl. Advocate General submits that while this Court had directed that the writ petitioner/ respondent''s appeal dated 27.08.2018 should be decided in terms of Rule 17 of the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 1947 Regulation), the decision to be made on the writ petitioner/ respondent''s appeal has to be made on the aid and advice of the State Government/ Council of Ministers, in terms of Article 163(1) read with the Rules framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India. The review petitioners'' counsel thus submits that the direction passed by this Court in the impugned Order dated 17.02.2020 in WP(C) No. 61(AP)/2020 should be modified, by directing the State Government to decide the appeal of the writ petitioner in the name of the Governor. 5. Mr. Subu Koyang, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, states that the power to decide the appeal under the 1947 Regulation provides that the Governor should hear the appeal and as the action of the Governor in the administrative side does not require the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, there is no ground for review of the impugned Order. The counsel for the respondent also submits that even if the Governor''s decision has to be made with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, there is no bar for the same in the impugned order. The counsel for the respondent also submits that even if the Governor''s decision has to be made with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, there is no bar for the same in the impugned order. The counsel for the respondent thus submits that the present application has been made only with a view to delay the case. He also submits that while the limitation for review is 30 days, there is a delay of 60 days in filing the review petition. 6. At this stage, Mr. K. Ete, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General for the review petitioners and Mr. Subu Koyang, the learned counsel for the respondent both agree that the review petition can be disposed of, if clarity is given to the impugned Order 17.02.2020, by observing that while the respondent''s appeal should be disposed of in terms of Regulation 17 of the 1947 Regulation, the Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Land Management Department and the Secretary to the Governor shall take steps for early disposal of the respondent''s appeal by the Governor. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 8. Rule 17 of the 1947 Regulation states as follows: wxyz "17. The [Administrator] may call for and examine the records of any proceedings or trial under the provisions of this Regulation and may set aside, modify or alter order or sentence passed by any subordinate authority." zyxw 9. It is not disputed that the word ''Administrator'' found in the 1947 Regulation had been substituted by "Governor of Assam" by the North East Area (Re-organisation) (Arunachal Pradesh) Adaptation of Law and Order, 1972 and that when the State of Arunachal Pradesh was born vide the State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 1986, the Governor of the State of Arunachal Pradesh replaced the word ''Governor of Assam''. 10. The above being said, there is nothing to show that there is any dispute/ issue between the Governor and the Government/ Council of Ministers, as to who should decide the respondent''s appeal dated 27.08.2018. Further, there is no impediment in the impugned order for the Governor to take the prior aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while taking a decision on the respondent''s appeal. Regulation 17 of the 1947 Regulation is unambiguous and no ground for review of the impugned Order has been made out in the review petitions. 11. Further, there is no impediment in the impugned order for the Governor to take the prior aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while taking a decision on the respondent''s appeal. Regulation 17 of the 1947 Regulation is unambiguous and no ground for review of the impugned Order has been made out in the review petitions. 11. The above being said, this Court is of the view that some clarity needs to be given to the impugned Order dated 17.02.2020. Accordingly, as per the consent of the parties, it is clarified while the writ petitioner''s/ respondent''s appeal dated 27.08.2018 shall be decided in terms of Regulation 17 of the 1947 Regulation, the Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Land Management Department and the Secretary to the Governor shall take necessary steps for disposal of the respondent''s appeal by the Governor within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. wxyz Review petitions are accordingly disposed of. zyxw