Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/119/2026 of MYINGTHUNGLO LOTHA Vs STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS on 2 June 2026
GAHC020004342026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/119/2026 MYINGTHUNGLO LOTHA REITRED SWEEPER, DISTRICT SPORTS OFFICE, WOKHA, NAGALAND, R/O ORCHID HILL COLONY, WOKHA, NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3
GAHC020004342026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/119/2026
MYINGTHUNGLO LOTHA
REITRED SWEEPER, DISTRICT SPORTS OFFICE, WOKHA, NAGALAND, R/O
ORCHID HILL COLONY, WOKHA, NAGALAND
VERSUS
STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, NAGALAND SECRETARIAT, KOHIMA, NAGALAND
2:THE COMMISSIONER
AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND
DEPTT OF YOUTH RESOURCES AND SPORTS
NAGALAND SECRETARIAT
KOHIMA
NAGALAND
3:THE COMMISIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND
DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
NAGALAND SECRETARIAT
KOHIMA
NAGALAND
4:THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH RESOURCES AND SPORTS
GOVT. OF NAGALAND
KOHIM
For the Applicant(s) : Mr. Shubhi Srivastava, Advocate : Mr. N. Z. Lotha, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Inaholi, Government Advocate BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
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 : 03.06.2026
(Devashis Baruah, J)
This is an application for condoning the delay of 88 days in filing the accompanying Writ Appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.01.2026 passed in WP(C) No.184/2023.
2. We have perused the grounds stated in the application as to why there was a delay in preferring the accompanying Appeal.
3. We are of the opinion that the said grounds so mentioned constitutes a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
4. We have also heard Ms. Inaholi, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
5. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 88 days in preferring the accompanying Appeal.
6. I.A. stands allowed.
J U D G E J U D G E Comparing Assistant