Page No.# 1/3 GAHC020000072025 2025:GAU-NL:423-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : PIL/1/2025 SHRI VIKATO SHIKHU AND ANR S/O SH. H. KHUWOTO SHIKU R/O B.P.O NIULAND HOVUKHU, NUILAND, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND- 797112 2: SHRI LHIKHRO KREO S/O KEDUZO KREO R/O H. NO. 34 VILLAGE- BADE DIMAPUR NAGALAND -79711 VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF NAGALAND 2:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY P AND AR DEPT. NAGALAND KOHIM Advocate for the Petitioner : S BORGOHAIN, TONGPOK,BAPLU CHAKMA, Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS Advocates For the petitioners : Mr. S. Borgohain For the respondents : Mr. K.N. Balgopal, AG : Mr. Imti Imsong, Addl. AG : Mr. Vitso Rio : Mr. Vilao Kense O R D E R 03.09.2025 (D. Baruah, J) Heard Mr. S. Borgohain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Mr. K.N. Balgopal, the learned senior counsel as well as the Advocate General, State of Nagaland, assisted by Mr. Imti Imsong, learned Additional Advocate General. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan Versus Union of India reported in (2020) 10 SCC 664, the petitioner would not like to pursue the instant Public Interest Litigation in as much as the Supreme Court in the said judgment had observed that the statutory enactment cannot be challenged by way of a public interest litigation. He further submitted that the impugned enactment, which has been challenged, is required to be challenged in the interest of justice so the petitioners may be granted the liberty to assail by way of a separate writ petition. 3. This Court also has taken note of the submission so made by Mr. K.N. Balgopal, the learned Advocate General for the State of Nagaland. Page No.# 3/3 4. A perusal of the Public Interest Litigation as has been filed by the petitioners appears to be not in the format in which the Gauhati High Court Rules specifically provides. The affidavit also is not in consonance with the Rules of the Gauhati High Court. Apart from that the petitioners have by way of the Public Interest Litigation assailed a statutory enactment which cannot be permitted. 5. Considering the above, we drop the instant Public Interest Litigation in view of the defects in the form of filing of the Public Interest Litigation as well as the challenge being made by way of the Public Interest Litigation to the statutory enactment. 5. Liberty, however, is granted to the petitioners to assail the said impugned enactment by way of a writ, if so advised. It is observed that the said liberty so given is subject to being permissible under law. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant