Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020008952025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/253/2025 SMTI Y. SETHRONGLA D/O YANGTONGSE, RESIDENTY OF DUNCAN BOSTI, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND, MULTI TASKING STAFF (OFFICE PEON) OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT, EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, DIMAPUR NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, DEPT. OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER EXCISE AND PROHIBITION NAGALAND DIMAPUR 3:TRHE SUPERINTENDENT EXCISE AND PROHIBITION DIMAPUR NAGALAND 4:MR. ATHOBU MEYASE S/O RULIE MEYASE R/O RULIE MEYASE R/O TSUUMA VILLAGE P.O. MEDZHIPHEMA CHUMOUKEDIMA NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : SENTIYANGER, Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : WA/50/2025 SMTI. Y. SETHRONGLA D/O YANGTONGSE RESIDENTY OF DUNCAN BOSTI DIMAPUR NAGALAND MULTI TASKING STAFF (OFFICE PEON) OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT EXCISE AND PROHIBITION DIMAPUR NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND DEPT. OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER EXCISE AND PROHIBITION NAGALAND DIMAPUR 3:TRHE SUPERINTENDENT EXCISE AND PROHIBITION DIMAPUR NAGALAND 4:MR. ATHOBU MEYASE S/O RULIE MEYASE R/O RULIE MEYASE R/O TSUUMA VILLAGE P.O. MEDZHIPHEMA CHUMOUKEDIMA NAGALAND ------------ Advocate for : SENTIYANGER Advocate for : appearing for STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG O R D E R 21.01.2026 (R. Phukan, J) Heard Ms. Yukhakokla, learned counsel for the applicant and also heard Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent. This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 18 (eighteen) days in filing the accompanying appeal. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appeal could not be filed in time as she could not obtain legal advice in time and that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and the same has duly been explained in paragraph-3 of the application; and under such circumstances, it is contended that the delay may be condoned and that the appeal may be admitted for hearing. Ms. Livika submits that she has no objection in the event of condoning delay of 18 (eighteen) days in preferring the connected appeal. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsels of both the parties we have carefully gone through the application and the grounds mentioned herein and it appears that the delay of 18 days is sufficiently Page No.# 4/4 explained and accordingly, the same stands condoned. In terms of the above, the interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant