Gauhati High Court - Itanagar
Anti Corruption Foundation (Arunachal ... vs The State Of Ap And 8 Ors on 17 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC040003672026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : PIL/5/2026
Anti Corruption Foundation (Arunachal Pradesh Unit)
represented by Shri Tana Roma Tara, Sate President Anti Corruption Foundation,
Arunachal Pradesh Son of Shri Tana Kapa Tara, resident of Pare Hapa Colony, Emchi
Village, PO and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.
VERSUS
The State of AP and 8 Ors
represented by the Chief Secretary, govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat,
Itanagar.
2:The Secretary
Age: 0
Occupation :
Social Justice
Empowerment and Tribal Affairs Department
Civil Secretariat
Itanagar.
3:The Secretary
Age: 0
Occupation :
Public Works Department
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
Civil Secretariat
Itanagar.
4:The Director
Age: 0
Occupation :
Social Justice Empowerment and Tribal Affairs Department
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
Itanagar.
Page No.# 2/6
5:The Deputy Commissioner
Age: 0
Occupation :
Keyi Panyor District
Arunachal Pradesh.
6:The Executive Engineer
Age: 0
Occupation :
PWD
Yazali Division
Keyi Panyor District
Arunachal Pradesh.
7:The Superintendent of Police
Age: 0
Occupation :
Anti Corruption Bureau
Itanagar
Arunachal Pradesh.
8:The Assistant Engineer
Age: 0
Occupation :
Yachuli Sub Division
PWD
Yazali Division
Keyi Panyor District
Arunachal Pradesh.
9:M/s JTR Enterprise
Age: 0
Occupation :
represented by its proprietor Shri Toko Raja
present resident of P Sector
PO and PS Nirjuli
Papum Pare District
Arunachal Pradesh
Advocate for the Petitioner : Nabam Saha, Nabam Takam,Tana Anmol,Nabam
Ochungchunkna,G.C Taba
Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), SC (SJE and TA Department),Tamar Gadi
Page No.# 3/6
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
ORDER
17.03.2026 (Robin Phukan, J.) Heard Mr. N. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondent Nos. 1 - 8.
2. This Public Interest Litigation, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of the Constitution of India, is instituted by Anti-Corruption Foundation (Arunachal Pradesh Unit), represented by its State President, namely Shri Tana Roma Tara.
3. The grievances, being sought to be addressed in this PIL, by the petitioner are that the Department of Social Justice, Empowerment and Tribal Affairs, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, has sanctioned a sum of Rs. 2.50 Crores for the financial year 2024 - 2025 for Water Conservation Project at Elyi Senyi Streams, under Yachuli Block, Keyi Panyor District, Arunachal Pradesh, against the grant, released under Article 275(1) of the Constitution of India by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India, during 2023 - 2024.
4. Mr. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the object of sanctioning the said project was that Yachuli Circle is facing scarcity of water and therefore, the project is utmost necessary to preserve the water during rainy season, for the dry season and accordingly, a proposal for the said project was given and thereafter, the said project has been approved and under SJETA for a sum of Rs. 2.50 Crores for the current financial year 2024-2025 and the work was allotted to the respondent No. 9, M/s JTR Enterprises, represented by Page No.# 4/6 its proprietor Shri Toko Raja.
4.1. Drawing attention of this Court to the photographs, at page Nos. 85 & 89, Mr. Saha submits that during field verification, conducted by the organization of the petitioner, it is found that work reflected in the official record does not correspondence with the ground reality and no functional water conservation infrastructure, capable of retaining water, throughout the year, is visible at the site and the site appears to be consist largely of excavated part, without any permanent engineered structure, as reflected in the sanctioned estimate.
4.2. Mr. Saha further submits that though the petitioner organization has submitted several representations and complaint, before the Superintendent of Police of the Anti-Corruption Bureau and to the Secretary of Social Justice Empowerment and Tribal Affairs Department and other competent authorities, seeking verification of the project and withholding the fund released, the same failed to evoke any response. Mr. Saha also submits that as per his information, within this month the respondent authorities are going to release the fund to the respondent No. 9, without completion of the project.
4.3. Mr. Saha also submits that if the fund is released without actual execution of the sanctioned project, the same would amounts to arbitrary and misuse of public resource and violation of public trust doctrine governing management of public fund and under such circumstances, he submits that at this stage notice may be issued and the respondent authorities may be directed not to release any fund to the respondent No. 9 without any verification.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1 - 8, however, submits that he may be allowed to obtain instructions in respect of the complaints and representations submitted by the Page No.# 5/6 petitioner organization before the Superintendent of Police of the Anti- Corruption Bureau and the Secretary of Social Justice Empowerment and Tribal Affairs Department and other competent authorities. Mr. Nabam, however, pointed out that the petitioner has not enclosed the DPR of the said project and unless the same is produced, it would be difficult to ascertain the extent of work executed so far. Mr. Nabam, however, agreed to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that without proper verification in respect of execution of work, before releasing the fund.
6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, we have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also gone through the photographs enclosed with the petition at page Nos. 85 & 89.
7. Let notice be issued to the respondents, returnable in 4 weeks. As Mr. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, has appeared and accepted notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 - 8, no formal notice is required to be issued. However, extra requisite copy of the petition be furnished to him during the course of the day.
8. Step be taken upon the respondent No. 9 by speed post with A/D as well as by usual process,within a week from today.
9. Pending further consideration, it is provided that the fund sanctioned for the aforementioned project, shall be released only after proper verification of the status of the work executed so far.
10. List the matter after 4 weeks.
Page No.# 6/6 JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant