Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14243 (GAU)

THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS v. SMTI ACHILA AONOK

I.A.(Civil)/197/2026 · 2026-09-07

Devashis Baruah, Yarenjungla Longkumer

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC020006472026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/197/2026 THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA 2: THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA 3: THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT KOHIMA NAGALAND 4: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT KOHIMA NAGALAN VERSUS SMTI ACHILA AONOK D/O LATE LIMATOSHI AO, KHALASI (CASUAL), OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, KOHIMA DIVISION, NAGALAND, KOHIMA Linked Case : Review.Pet./6/2026 THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND KOHIMA 2: THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND Page No.# 2/3 WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA 3: THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT KOHIMA NAGALAND 4: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT KOHIMA NAGALAND VERSUS SMTI ACHILA AONOK D/O LATE LIMATOSHI AO KHALASI(CASUAL) OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT KOHIMA DIVISION NAGALAND KOHIMA For the applicant (s) : Mr. V. Zhimomi, Govt. Advocate, NL For the respondent (s) : Ms. Longtsubeni T. Humtsoe, Advocate BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER O R D E R 08.09.2026 (D. Baruah, J.) Heard Mr. V. Zhimomi, the learned counsel for the State of Nagaland and Ms. Longtsubeni T. Humtsoe, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole Respondent. Page No.# 3/3 2. This is an application for condoning the delay of 21 days in preferring the accompanying Review Petition seeking review of the judgment and order dated 08.06.2026 passed in WA No.24/2026. 3. This Court has duly taken note of the contents of Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present application and in our opinion, the same would constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 4. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 21 days in filing the Review Petition. 5. With the above, the I.A. stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant