Page No.# 1/3 GAHC020004462025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/139/2025 SHRI R. THUNGARHOMO LOTHA @ THUNGARHOMO TUNGU HAYI KHEL PHIRO VILLAGE P.O. WOKHA B.P.O. - WOZHURO DIST- WOKHA NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NAGALAND, NAGALAND KOHIMA Advocate for the Petitioner : Z. N. NGULLIE, Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 21.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Z. N. Ngullie, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. A. Ayemi, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3; Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 as well as Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed by the Page No.# 2/3 petitioner in connection with WP(C) No. 154/2024 praying for allowing the petitioner to amend the prayer portion of the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that WP(C) No. 154/2024 has been filed by the present petitioner impugning the order dated 21.06.2024 whereby 24 Members of Village Development Board of Phiro Village were selected by the Government. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the petitioner is mainly aggrieved with selection of respondent No. 5 whose name appears at Serial No. 1 of the impugned order. He also submits that this Court by order dated 15.07.2025 was pleased to allow the petitioner to file an application for seeking amendment and accordingly he has filed the interlocutory application. 4. On the other hand, Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 as well as Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 have objected to the prayer for amendment at this belated stage. They submit that as the pleadings in this case are complete and the respondents have already filed their affidavit- in-opposition wherein they have raised preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary party. They submit that except respondent No. 5, none of the other 23 selected members has been made party in this writ petition and, therefore, they submit that if the writ petition is allowed to be amended at this stage, the preliminary objection raised by them would become infructuous. 5. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, has submitted that she leaves it on the wisdom of the Court to Page No.# 3/3 decide the interlocutory application. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 7. It appears that the petitioner is aggrieved mainly due to inclusion of the name of Mr. Nchumthung i.e., the respondent No. 5 as one of the selected members by the impugned order dated 21.06.2025. 8. As the petitioner does not have any grievance against the other 23 selected members, the amendment sought for by the petitioner appears to be reasonable and logical. 9. Denying the prayer for amendment at this stage would require the petitioner to approach this Court again for the same cause of action which is in the considered opinion of this Court is not necessary. 10. As the petitioner does not have any grievance against the other 23 selected members by the impugned notification, the prayer for seeking amendment as mentioned in the paragraph No. 4 of the present interlocutory application is hereby allowed. 11. The petitioner shall submit the amended writ petition within seven days from the date of this order. 12. This interlocutory application is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant