Gauhati High Court
MC(C)/1/2026 of STATE OF NAGALAND AND 6 ORS Vs ZUPENO LOTHA AND ANR on 11 May 2026
GAHC020000872026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : MC(C)/1/2026 STATE OF NAGALAND AND 6 ORS REPRESENT THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, NAGALAND, KOHIMA 2: THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY PERSONNEL AND
GAHC020000872026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : MC(C)/1/2026
STATE OF NAGALAND AND 6 ORS
REPRESENT THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF
NAGALAND, NAGALAND, KOHIMA
2: THE COMMISSIONER AND
SECRETARY
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
NAGALAND
KOHIMA
3: THE HOME COMMISSIONER
GOVT. OF NAGALAND
KOHIMA
NAGALAND.
4: THE FINANCE COMMISSIONER
GOVT. OF NAGALAND
KOHIMA
NAGALAND.
5: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
NAGALAND
KOHIMA
6: THE COMMANDANT
8TH NAP BATTALION
NALTOQA
7: THE TREASURY OFFICER
KOHIMA (NORTH)
KOHIMA
NAGALAND
VERSUS
ZUPENO LOTHA AND ANR
W/O LATE MHONLUMO LOTHA, R/O SHAKI VILLAGE, WOKHA, NAGALAND
Advocate for the Petitioner : N. LONGKUMER, Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
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 : 12.05.2026
1. Heard Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel appearing for the applicant.
2. On 6th of April, 2026, and on 21st of April, 2026, a submission was made before this Court that, a counsel had received instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No.1 and time was sought for to file the Vakalatnama for the aforesaid respondent No.1. However, no Vakalatnama is found on record today.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that pursuant to the liberty granted to take steps by dasti on the respondent No.1, steps were taken and the respondent No.1 has also been served a copy of this Misc Case.
4. An affidavit regarding the service of notice by dasti on the respondent No.1 has also been filed on 12th of May, 2026. On a Annexure B of the affidavit filed on 12th of May, 2026, reflects the thumb impression identified by an Advocate and routed through the Officer-in-Charge P.S.-II Mokokchung. Accordingly, it is evident that service of notice on the respondent No.1 is complete.
5. This Misc. Case had been referred by the applicant for recalling the order dated 12.02.2026 passed in I.A.(Civil) No.222/2025,by which the Interlocutory Application filed by the applicant herein had been dismissed for non-prosecution.
6. The order dated 12.02.2026 reflects that since none had appeared for the applicants, i.e., the State of Nagaland, on two consecutive days, the Court deemed that the applicants were not interested in pursuing the matter. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application stood dismissed for non-prosecution.
7. Mr. Longkumer, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, has submitted that the State of Nagaland in the particular Interlocutory Application was not represented by the Government Advocate for Nagaland, but Mr. Longkumer had been engaged, as a Special counsel in the matter. However, in none of the cause list dated 27.01.2026 as well as 12.02.2026 the name of Mr. N. Longkumer had been reflected. Instead the cause list reflected the Government Advocate, Nagaland as the counsel for the applicants.
8. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that since his name had not been reflected in the cause list on any of the occasion, it was only due to oversight that the I.A. No.222/2025 could not be pursued in this Court. Accordingly, he has submitted that given an opportunity, the Interlocutory application shall be properly pursued.
9. None appears for the respondent No.1, although notice has been deemed to be served upon said respondent.
10. None has appeared for the opposite respondent No.2, namely the Accountant General, Nagaland.
11. On going through the contents of the Misc.Case, it is noticed that the cause list, in fact, did not reflect the name of Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel representing the applicants in I.A. No. 222/2025. Therefore, accepting the explanation given by Mr. N. Longkumer, this Court deems it fit to restore the Interlocutory Application (Civil) No.222/2025 to its original number.
12. Accordingly, the Misc. Case is allowed. Interlocutory Application No.222/2025 is restored to file on its original number. Cause list shall reflect the name of Mr. N Longkumer a counsel for applicant in I.A. No.222/2025.
13. Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Comparing Assistant