MC(WP(C))/608/2026 of Chongtham Joykumar Singh Vs State of Manipur and 5 Ors on 6 September 2026

ORDER

07.09.2026

Heard Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu along with Mr. Abhishek Prasad Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant through video conferencing platform; Mr. Th. Sukumar, learned Government Advocate for State respondent No.1 (MAHUD); Ms. Gangarani, learned counsel for respondent No.4 (PDA) and Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Y. Nikil, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 (Imphal Municipal Corporation).

By the present applications, the petitioner prayed for a direction for taking specimen signature from Shri K. Chandrakumar Singh, retired Commissioner, IMC in connection with the document at annexure-X/3 of the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1021 of 2022. By order dated 13.03.2023 (annexure-X/3), Shri K. Chandrakumar Singh, then the IMC Commissioner issued an order stating that Abujam Surjit Singh Digitally signed by Abujam Surjit Singh Date: 2026.09.08 17:42:32 +05'30'

petitioners are the oldest shop keepers at New Lamphel Supermarket near Sankar Talkies Cinema Hall, Imphal and WP(C) No.670 of 2022 and WP(C) No.1021 of 2022 filed by the petitioners are pending before this Court and 22(twenty two) shops are to be allotted compulsorily in anticipation of the final judgment of this Court. In this respect, Shri K. Chandrakumar, retired Commissioner, IMC wrote a letter dated 04.05.2026 to the Commissioner, IMC denying the issuance of the order dated 13.03.2026 annexed by the petitioners in their additional affidavit and it is stated that the document is fake. In both the applications, i.e., MC(WP(C)) No.607 and MC(WP(C)) No 608, the petitioners annexed an order dated 26.06.2024 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in MC(WP(C)) No. 209 of 2023 with WP(C) No.534 of 2023 whereby in case of dispute in the signature, Registrar(Judicial) of this Court was directed to obtain the signatures from the 5 petitioners under provision of Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 so as to narrow down the controversy that has arisen for consideration before this Court. Relying on said the order, Mr. A. P Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for giving a direction to Shri K. Chandrakumar, then the Commissioner(IMC) to obtain his signature for verification and to establish the genuineness of the order dated 13.03.2026 purportedly issued by Shri Mr. K. Chandrakumar. This Court is of view that the order dated 26.06.2024 passed by Division Bench of the Court in WP(C) No.534 of 2023 is an order simpliciter confined to that case and is not a precedent. In the present case, the author of order dated 13.03.2026

itself denied the issuance of any such order, not to speak the dispute in signature and there is allegation of order dated 13.03.2026 (Annexure- X/3) being fake.

This Court is not inclined to proceed further in the matter for verification of signature, as the existence of the document itself is denied by the author and in such circumstances, applications i.e., MC(WP(C)) No. 607 of 2026 and MC(WP(C)) No. 608 of 2026 are hereby dismissed. No cost.

JUDGE Ab. Surjit