Ningtoulung Daimei v. State of Manipur and 9 Others

Order

29.04.2025 [1]

Heard Mr. D. Julius Riamei, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Ch. Sundari, learned G.A. for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. Serto T Kom, learned counsel for private respondent Nos. 3 to

¶11[2]

The petitioner approached this Court for quashing of orders and certificates issued by the State Authorities. The prayer is reproduced as: "(i) Pass an order or direction by issuing a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash and set aside the (i) order dated

21.08.1990 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi, (ii) the land ownership certificate dated 08.1.2007 and issued by Sub-Deputy Collector, SAitu Gamphazol, (iii) the land ownership certificate dated 27.11.2008 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner Kangpokpi and (iv) order dated 07.12.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati; or

(ii) Direct the respondent No. 1 to consider and dispose of the representations dated 30.09.2022 within certain time framed."

[3]

It is stated that the petitioner has already submitted representations dated 30.09.2022 and 10.10.2022 to the Addl. Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur for cancelling certificates/orders as mentioned in prayer No. (i) of the writ petition. It is submitted at the bar that representations are still pending with the State Authority. [4]

Respondents have also filed counter affidavit. [5]

Mr. D. Julius Riamei, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage by issuing an innocuous order to the State respondent to consider and pass a speaking order to the pending representations submitted by the petitioner. [6]

Mrs. Ch. Sundari, learned G.A., submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition has already been settled in the earlier judgment dated 29.07.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 12 of 2022, etc. [7]

On the other hand, Mr. Serto T Kom, learned counsel for the private respondents, submits that he has no objection in disposing the writ petition by issuing an innocuous order to the State respondent to consider the pending representations submitted by the petitioner. However, the private respondents may be permitted to file objection to the pending representations before the State Authority. It is also stated that the judgment in the subject matter of the writ appeal being WA No. 12 of 2022 and the issue involved in the present writ petition are different. [8]

This Court has perused the materials on record and considered the limited prayer of the petitioner made at the bar. [9]

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No. 1 to consider the pending representations dated

30.09.2022 and 10.10.2022 submitted by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. [10]

Private respondents are also permitted to raise objection to the representations of the petitioner before respondent No. 1 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. [11]

It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the merit of the case. [12]

With this observation, writ petition is disposed of.

JUDGE

Kh. Joshua Maring

KH. JOSHUA MARING Date: 2025.04.30 12:56:18 +05'30'

Item No. 135 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL WP(C) No. 1014 of 2022 Ningtoulung Raimei …..Petitioner/s - Versus – State of Manipur & 9 Ors. .... Respondent/s BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA