Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/176/2026 of MOLVOM VILLAGE COUNCIL AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 9 ORS on 7 September 2026
GAHC020005862026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/176/2026 MOLVOM VILLAGE COUNCIL AND ANR DISTRICT - CHUMOUKEDIMA, NAGALAND. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MR. LETKHOJANG, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O MR.
GAHC020005862026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/176/2026
MOLVOM VILLAGE COUNCIL AND ANR
DISTRICT - CHUMOUKEDIMA, NAGALAND. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MR. LETKHOJANG, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O MR. TOUKHOPAO, R/O
HOUSE NO. 55, MOLVOM VILLAGE, P.O./ P.S. MEDZIPHEMA, CHUMOUKEDIMA, NAGALAND
2: MR. LETJAHAO MISAO
S/O LATE LALJASEH KUKI
R/O HOUSE NO. 1
MOLVOM VILLAGE
P.O./ P.S. MEDZIPHEMA
NAGALAND
CHUMOUKEDIMA
NAGALAND. CHIEF/G.B. MOLVOM VILLAGE
DISTRICT - CHUMOUKEDIMA
NAGALAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 9 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA, NAGALAND
2:THE HOME COMMISSIONER
GOVT. OF NAGALAND
KOHIMA
NAGALAND
3:THE COMMISSIONER
GOVT. OF NAGALAND
KOHIMA
NAGALAND
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHUMOUKEDIMA
NAGALAND
5:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SUB-DIVISION MEDZIPHEMA
CHUMOUKEDIMA
NAGALAND
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CHUMOUKEDIMA
NAGALAND
7:THE MEDZIPHEMA VILLAGE COUNCIL
CHUMOUKEDIMA
NAGALAND
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
8:THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NORTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI
9:THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
RAIL BHAWAN
RAFI MARG
NEW DELHI
10:DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
DIMAPUR
NAGALAN
Advocate for the Petitioner : ATILIVI YEPTHOMI, Advocate for the Respondent : ,
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 08-09-2026 Heard Ms. Esther, learned counsel for the applicants- petitioners; Mr. L.T. Sangtam, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland for the opposite party nos. 1 - 6; Mr. Aliba Ozukum, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 7; Mr. Yangerwati, learned Central Government Counsel for the opposite party no. 8; and Mr. Y.P. Gupta, learned Central Government Counsel for the opposite party nos. 9 & 10.
2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed by the applicants who are the writ petitioners in the accompanying writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 129/2025, seeking amendments in the writ petition.
3. It is averred in the application by the applicants that certain facts have come to their knowledge after filing of an affidavit-in- opposition by the State respondents. The applicants-writ petitioners have referred to Minutes of a Meeting held, on 05.06.2024, in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chumukedima and a decision taken therein. The proceedings of the meeting pertained to affairs of Molvom village and the role played by one Chakhroma Public Organisation in the course of the said meeting.
4. A reference to an Order no. DC-CMD/LR-43/2023/1488-98 dated 05.06.2024 was made by the said Chakhroma Public Organisation in an Order dated 12.06.2026, a copy of which has not yet been received by the applicants-writ petitioners.
5. Stating as above, the applicants-writ petitioners have averred that the occasion to seek amendments in the writ petition have arisen. In view of the role purportedly played by Chakhroma Public Organisation in the affairs of Molvom village, a need has also arisen for impleadment of the said organization as a party-respondent in the accompanying writ petition. The amendments sought by the applicants-writ petitioners are, therefore, in the form of impleadment of Chakhroma Public Organisation as a party- respondent no. 11 in the accompanying writ petition and insertion of a number of paragraphs which are mentioned as paragraph 8, paragraph 9, paragraph 10, paragraph 11, paragraph 11.1, paragraph 11.2, paragraph 11.3, paragraph 11.4, paragraph 11.5 & paragraph 11.6, paragraph 12, paragraph 13, paragraph 14, paragraph 15, paragraph 16 & paragraph 16.1, paragraph 17 and paragraph 18 in the application. It is averred that in view of the above amendments sought for, there is a necessity to amend the prayers as well, as mentioned in the instant application. It is submitted that amendments sought for would go to the root of the issues raised in the accompanying writ petition, but the amendments will not change the nature and character of the accompanying writ petition.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party- respondents have submitted that they have no objection if the prayer for amendments, as sought for in the instant application, are allowed to be made in the accompanying writ petition.
7. In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant application is allowed.
8. The applicants-writ petitioners shall file the amended writ petition incorporating the amendments before the Registry within a week’s time. After receipt of the amended writ petition, Registry to list the writ petition accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Comparing Assistant