Chief Secretary must decide the public-interest representation on merits by a reasoned order within twelve weeks.

The petitioner, Chairman of the Western Raphei Road Development Committee–Ukhrul, filed a Public Interest Litigation concerning the construction of an RCC bridge across the Chingjaroi River, connecting Tangkhul and Phoumai villages in Ukhrul and Senapati Districts with the National Highway.

The existing hanging/suspension bridge allegedly permits only pedestrians and light vehicles and cannot safely bear heavy or mini-truck traffic. Consequently, such vehicles are required to cross the river at ground level, including during the wet season, causing hardship and risking loss of life.

The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 27 July 2026 to the competent authorities seeking action regarding the bridge.

Although proof of service was not produced, the Court deemed 12 September 2026 to be the notional date of receipt of the representation by the Chief Secretary, considering the nature of the matter.

The State accepted notice for all respondents.

With the parties’ consent, the Court took up the PIL at the admission stage and dispensed with the filing of an affidavit-in-opposition.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited. The Court applied the procedural principles governing disposal of a public law representation by the competent administrative authority: the representation was required to be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law, and disposed of through a reasoned or “speaking” proceeding within a prescribed period.

The Court also applied the principle that, where the petitioner narrows the relief sought and the State consents, a writ petition may be disposed of at the admission stage without requiring a counter-affidavit, particularly where the matter concerns a non-adversarial public issue.

The Court did not adjudicate the technical or substantive merits of the proposed bridge construction. Instead, it considered that the public-interest grievance had been crystallised in the petitioner’s representation and that the petitioner had fairly limited the immediate relief to its consideration by the Chief Secretary.

In view of the public nature of the issue, the State’s acceptance of notice, and consent of counsel, the Court found it appropriate to direct administrative consideration rather than undertake an original determination of infrastructure requirements.

To ensure meaningful consideration, the Court required a speaking decision and permitted the Chief Secretary’s office to seek further information from the petitioner, subject to a defined timeline.

If further information or documents were required, the Chief Secretary’s office could requisition them within the first fortnight, and the petitioner was required to respond within the succeeding fortnight, with the entire exercise to be completed within four weeks.

The speaking proceeding was to be served on the petitioner or his counsel within seven working days of disposal; service on the petitioner’s counsel was held sufficient.

The Court preserved the parties’ right to pursue further legal remedies if aggrieved by the administrative decision and imposed no order as to costs.