Manipur High Court
WP(C)/550/2026 of Khumanthem Dhanachandra Singh Vs State of Manipur and 3 Ors on 27 July 2026
& 14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL WP(C) No. 550 of 2026
Item no. 13 & 14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 550 of 2026 with
MC(WP(C)) No. 566 of 2026
Khumanthem Dhanachandra Singh
…. Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Manipur and 3 Ors.
…. Respondents
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
28.07.2026
Present Mr. N. Jotendro, learned sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Abdul Baqee Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
By the present petition, the petitioner prays for issuing a writ in the nature of quo warranto for setting aside the appointment of respondent no. 4 as Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer in Manipur Khadi and Village Industries Board. It is submitted that the respondent no. 4 does not have requisite qualification to be appointed to the said post and also the post being a selection and gazette post to be routed to MPSC and the case of the respondent no. 4, the appointment is not on the recommendation of the MPSC. The learned sr. counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 13 of the Manipur Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1966 and submits that the respondent no. 4 does not have requisite qualification.
This Court has perused the provision of Section 13 and Section 13 says that a non-member of the Board can be appointed as Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer of the Board and nothing is provided in the requisite qualification. Oinam Thoiba Meitei Digitally signed by Oinam Thoiba Meitei Date: 2026.07.28 14:10:36 +05'30'
The learned sr. counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with preservation of the right to challenge the appointment of respondent no. 4 and liberty to file a fresh in an appropriate proceeding.
Mr. Th. Vashum, learned GA for the State respondents submits that this Court may pass appropriate order.
Considering the submissions made at the Bar, WP(C) No. 550 of 2026 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one before appropriate forum.
MC(WP(C)) No. 566 of 2026 is also disposed of, accordingly.
JUDGE
Thoiba