MR. TAMA NGULLIE vs THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 2 ORS Advocate - GOVT ADV NL — WA/18/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Next hearing: 28th May 2026.
CNR: GAHC020002782026
Filing Number
WA/192/2026
Filing Date
20-Apr-2026
Registration No
WA/18/2026
Registration Date
28-Apr-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kalyan Rai Surana , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kalyan Rai Surana , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
10237 - Writ Appeals under the Gauhati High Court Rules. ( 204 )
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Last updated 09-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MR. TAMA NGULLIE
Adv. AJANO,W. MARHU,W. MARHU, ,B. SOTO,W. MARHU
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 2 ORS Advocate - GOVT ADV NL
-
2.THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
-
3.THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR
Case History
-
28-May-2026
Next hearingPending
-
28-May-2026
Admission
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kalyan Rai Surana , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
-
06-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kalyan Rai Surana,hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar SharmaView PDF
CASE SUMMARY: WA/18/2026 The Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench) heard an intra-court appeal by Mr. Tama Ngullie, a suspended school chowkidar, challenging the dismissal of his earlier writ petition. The appellant argued that a Review Committee constituted to consider his continued suspension exceeded the mandatory 3-month period and acted beyond its authority. The court issued a rule returnable in three weeks, requiring the appellant's counsel to serve copies of the appeal memo to the Government Advocate and granting the State respondents liberty to file affidavits. The case is adjourned for further hearing after three weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
20-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WA/18/2026
CASE SUMMARY: WA/18/2026 The Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench) heard an intra-court appeal by Mr. Tama Ngullie, a suspended school chowkidar, challenging the dismissal of his earlier writ petition. The appellant argued that a Review Committee constituted to consider his continued suspension exceeded the mandatory 3-month period and acted beyond its authority. The court issued a rule returnable in three weeks, requiring the appellant's counsel to serve copies of the appeal memo to the Government Advocate and granting the State respondents liberty to file affidavits. The case is adjourned for further hearing after three weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts