Manipur High Court
WP(C)/1004/2025 of S Thaongaolou Vs Union of India and 4 Ors on 12 July 2026
1004 of 2025 Contd.../- IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Contd.../-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 1004 of 2025
S. Thaongaolou, aged about 45 years, S/o H. Salouni, Chairman of Katafiimai Village, Paomata Sub-Division, Senapati District, Manipur - 795107
… Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Union of India represented by its Secretary, the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH), Government of India, Transport Bhawan,1 Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110001.
2. National
Highways
Infrastructure
Development
Corporation Limited (NHIDCL), represented by its General Manager, Regional Office, Manipur at Transit Hostel, Officer’s Club, Lamphelpat, Imphal West, Manipur – 795004.
3. The State of Manipur, Rep. by its Commissioner/ New Secretary, Government of Manipur, New Secretariat, Mantripukhri, Imphal West, Manipur – 795001.
4. The Deputy Commissioner/ CALA, Senapati District, P.O.
& P.S. Senapati District, Manipur – 795129.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Paomata Sub-Division, Senapati District, Manipur – 795104.
… Respondents
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the petitioner
:: Mr. Stephen P., Advocate
For the respondents
:: Ms. Nancy, Advocate &
Mr. Shyam Sharma, GA
Date of Hearing & order
:: 13-07-2026
IN. 42
+05'30'
Contd.../-
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.
O R D E R
Mr. Stephen P, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner; Ms. Nancy, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2 through VC platform and Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA appeared on behalf of the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5.
In view of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and as agreed to by all the counsel appearing for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of today.
At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner/ CALA, Senapati District, Manipur, by filing a representation dated 30-10-2025 for redressing the grievances raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition and that the said representation is still pending for consideration and disposal by the Deputy Commissioner/ CALA, Senapati District, Manipur (respondent No. 4).
The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied for the time being if the present writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No. 4 to consider the said representation on its own merit and strictly in terms of the applicable law and to dispose of the same by issuing a speaking order within a stipulated period.
Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA representing the respondent No. 4 submitted that as the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is confined to the consideration and disposal of the representation
Contd.../-
submitted by the petitioner, he has no objection in disposing of this writ petition as prayed for on behalf of the petitioner.
Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court is of the considered view that it will be in the interest of justice to issue the following directions:-
(i) The Deputy Commissioner, CALA, Senapati District, Manipur, is hereby directed to consider the representation dated 30-10-2025 submitted by the petitioner on its own merit and strictly in terms of the applicable law and to dispose of the same by issuing an appropriate order;
(ii) The process for consideration and disposal of the representation should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order; and
(iii) It is made clear that the respondent No. 4 should communicate any decision passed by the respondent No. 4 in connection with the said representation to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of taking such a decision.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.
JUDGE Devananda