Allowed

Shri Mengitong Pongen v. Shri Sentiyanger Imchen IAS and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Sept 2026I.A.(Civil)/221/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application filed during a contempt petition, the Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench allowed the impleadment of Smti. Asangla Imti as Respondent No. 4, holding it essential for effective adjudication following a change of departmental incumbent.

What did the court decide?

The application for impleadment of Smti. Asangla Imti as Respondent No. 4 is allowed and the application is disposed.

Shri Mengitong Pongen Vs Shri Sentiyanger… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2026)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC020007892026

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/221/2026

¶5

SHRI MENGITONG PONGEN S/O TAKAMANEN, R/O UNGMA VILLAGE, MOKOKCHUNG, NAGALAND

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

SHRI SENTIYANGER IMCHEN IAS AND 2 ORS THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND

¶8

2:SMTI. KEVILENO ANGAMI THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION NAGALAND KOHIMA

¶9

3:SHRI SHASHANK PRATAP SINGH IAS THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION NAGALAND KOHIM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : TOSHI O. LONGKUMER,

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

Linked Case : COP(C)/8/2026 SHRI MENGITONG PONGEN S/O TAKAMANEN R/O UNGMA VILLAGE MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND VERSUS SHRI SENTIYANGER IMCHEN IAS AND 2 ORS THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND 2:SMTI. KEVILENO ANGAMI THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:SHRI SHASHANK PRATAP SINGH IAS THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION NAGALAND KOHIMA -----------Advocate for : TOSHI O. LONGKUMER Advocate for : N. ANGAMI(C-1) appearing for SHRI SENTIYANGER IMCHEN IAS AND 2 ORS

¶14

BEFORE HONBLE MRS JUSTICE HELEN DAWNGLIANI

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

15.09.2026

¶17

Ms. Esther Chakre, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.

¶18

Page No.# 3/4

¶19

2. The instant application has been filed for impleadment of Smti. Asangla Imti, Commissioner & Secretary, Department of School Education, Nagaland as Respondent No. 4 in Contempt Petition [COP(C)/8/2026].

¶20

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that at the time of filing the instant contempt petition, Smti. Kevileno Angami, Respondent No. 2 was holding the post of Commissioner & Secretary, Department of School Education, Nagaland. However, the said incumbent has been transferred to Health & Family Welfare Department vide the Notification PAR-4/6/2020/A dated 04.08.2026 and is replaced by Smti. Asangla Imti as the Commissioner & Secretary, Department of School Education, Nagaland. According to the learned counsel, due to the change in incumbent of the School Education Department it has become imperative to implead the new incumbent as party Respondent to the instant Contempt Petition. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that she may be allowed to add Smti. Asangla Imti, Commissioner & Secretary, Department of School Education, Nagaland as Respondent No. 4 which is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the contempt petition.

¶21

4. The Contempt Petition is directed against an individual for the willful and deliberate violation of Court’s order even though the violation may have been in the course of performance of official duty. In the case at hand, in order to fully adjudicate the contempt petition impleadment of Respondent No. 4 who is the present incumbent to the concerned Department is found to be essential. I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel.

¶22

Page No.# 4/4

¶23

5. It is made clear that the impleadment of the present incumbent is necessitated only on account of change of incumbency and for effective adjudication, and shall not, by itself, be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the allegations made in the contempt petition.

¶24

6. The application for impleadment of Ms. Asangla Imti as Respondent No. 4 is allowed and the application is disposed.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Shri Mengitong Pongen v. Shri Sentiyanger Imchen IAS and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Mengitong Pongen v. Shri Sentiyanger Imchen IAS and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases