Shri Vitolu Sema and Anr. Vs State of Nagaland and 7 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shri Vitolu Sema and Anr. Vs State of Nagaland and 7 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application for condonation of delay of 323 days in preferring the accompanying Review Petition (Review.Pet./8/2025) allowed, subject to deposit of Rs. 10,000/- as cost within 15 days, to be transmitted by the Registry to the High Court Bar Association, Kohima; the Review Petition to be listed thereafter, and to stand rejected automatically if the deposit is not made within the stipulated period.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 323 days in preferring the accompanying Review Petition against the Judgment & Order dated 25.10.2022 passed in PIL/2/2024 should be condoned, and if so, on what conditions.

Court's answer

The applicants' actions during the period between the Judgment & Order dated 25.10.2022 and the filing of the accompanying Review Petition were suggestive of lack of due diligence, a fact also averred in the objection filed by opposite party no. 8.

Ratio / Principle

Notwithstanding the lack of due diligence, since the subject matter of the PIL was a proposed National Highway, the Court deemed it proper to condone the delay of 323 days subject to payment of costs by the applicants.

Key takeaways

The condonation was made subject to deposit of Rs. 10,000/- by the applicants within 15 days from the date of the Order; on receipt, the Registry shall transmit the amount to the High Court Bar Association, Kohima.ratio¶34
If the applicants fail to deposit the said amount within the stipulated time period, the accompanying Review Petition will stand rejected without any further reference to the Court.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Limitation – Condonation of delay – Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 – Interlocutory Application I.A.(Civil)/182/2025 in Review Petition Review.Pet./8/2025 directed against Judgment & Order dated 25.10.2022 passed in PIL/2/2024 – Delay of 323 days explained in paragraph nos. 6 to 18 of the application – Court found the applicants' conduct between the judgment and the filing of the Review Petition suggestive of lack of due diligence, as also averred in the objection of opposite party no. 8 – However, as the subject matter of the PIL was a proposed National Highway, delay condoned subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited within 15 days, to be transmitted by the Registry to the High Court Bar Association, Kohima – On failure to deposit, the Review Petition to stand rejected without further reference – Application allowed (Order dated 10.06.2026, Kohima Bench, Manish Choudhury & Pranjal Das, JJ.).

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC020006762025

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/182/2025

SHRI VITOLU SEMA AND ANR

SON OF HENIZHE SEMA, R/O SAPTIQA TOWN, ZUNHEBOTO, NAGALAND

2: SHRI JEVITO ACHUMI SON OF LATE YETOHE ACHUMI R/O B-KHEL KICHILIMI VILLAGE ZUNHEBOTO NAGALAN

VERSUS

STATE OF NAGALAND AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NAGALAND, NAGALAND KOHIMA

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT. OF NAGALAND DEPT. OF WORKS AND HOUSING KOHIMA NAGALAND

3:THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF NPWD (ROADS AND BRIDGERS) KOHIMA NAGALAND

4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (NH) KOHIMA NAGALAND

5:THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS (MoRTH) REPRESENTED BYTHE SECREARY TRANSPORT BHAWAN 1ST PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-110001

Page No.# 2/5

6:THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (NHIDCL) REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR 3RD FLOOR PTI BUILDING 4TH PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-110001 7:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PROJECT) NHIDCL NEAR NPWD COMPLEX KOHIMA NAGALAND 8:AGAPE H. CHISHI THILIXU VILLAGE BLOCK 2 LANE 4 HOUSE NO. 181 DIMAPUR NAGALAN

Advocate for the Petitioner : A. ZHIMOMI,

Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL,

Linked Case : Review.Pet./8/2025

SHRI VITOLU SEMA AND ANR SON OF HENIZHE SEMA R/O SAPTIQA TOWN ZUNHEBOTO NAGALAND

2: SHRI JEVITO ACHUMI SON OF LATE YETOHE ACHUMI R/O B-KHEL KICHILIMI VILLAGE ZUNHEBOTO NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF NAGALAND NAGALAND KOHIMA

Page No.# 3/5

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT. OF NAGALAND DEPT. OF WORKS AND HOUSING KOHIMA NAGALAND 3:THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF NPWD (ROADS AND BRIDGERS) KOHIMA NAGALAND 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (NH) KOHIMA NAGALAND 5:THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS (MoRTH) REPRESENTED BYTHE SECREARY TRANSPORT BHAWAN 1ST PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-110001

6:THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (NHIDCL) REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR 3RD FLOOR PTI BUILDING 4TH PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-110001 7:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PROJECT) NHIDCL NEAR NPWD COMPLEX KOHIMA NAGALAND 8:AGAPE H. CHISHI THILIXU VILLAGE BLOCK 2 LANE 4 HOUSE NO. 181 DIMAPUR NAGALAND -----------Advocate for : A. ZHIMOMI Advocate for : GOVT ADV NL appearing for STATE OF NAGALAND AND 7 ORS

Page No.# 4/5

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

ORDER

Date : 10.06.2026 (M. Choudhury, J)

Heard Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the applicants; Mr. L.T. Sangtam, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland along with Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, learned Government Advocate for the opposite party nos. 1 to 4; Mr. Taka Masa, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sentilong, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 8 and Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Akhrieu Chusi, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 6 & 7.

2. The instant Interlocutory Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred by the applicants seeking condonation of delay of 323 days, which period of delay has occurred in preferring the accompanying Review Petition against the Judgment & Order dated 25.10.2022 passed in PIL/2/2024.

3. The applicants have sought to explain the period of delay in paragraph nos. 6 to 18.

4. On consideration of the reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the actions of the appellants during the time period between the Judgment & Order which was delivered on 25.10.2022, and the time when this accompanying Review Petition was filed, is suggestive of lack of due diligence. The said fact is also averred in the objection filed by the opposite party no. 8. However, considering the fact that the subject

Page No.# 5/5

matter in the PIL was a proposed National Highway, we deem it proper to condone the delay, subject to deposit of a cost by the applicants due to their actions, which is suggestive of lack of due diligence.

5. Therefore, the instant Application seeking condonation of delay of 323 days, which period of delay has occurred in preferring the accompanying Review Petition is allowed, subject to deposit a sum of ₹10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) by the applicants within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of this Order in the Registry of this Court. On receipt of the amount, the Registry shall, in turn, transmit the said amount in favour of the High Court Bar Association, Kohima immediately thereafter, in its account.

6. The accompanying Review Petition be listed thereafter.

7. If applicants fail to deposit the said amount within the stipulated time period, the accompanying Review Petition will stand rejected without any further reference to this Court.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant