Manipur High Court
CONT CAS(C)/58/2026 of SMT. Jimit @ Kimi @ Yee Myint and 2 Ors Vs N Ashok Kumar on 15 June 2026
| 5 Item No. 9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL CONT. CAS(C)
P a g e 1 | 5
Item No. 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CONT. CAS(C) No. 58 of 2026
1.
Smt. Jimit @ Kimi @ Yee Myint aged about 39
years, W/o (L) Chawmia @ Yee Myint resident of Mangswa Khutan Village, P.S. Monywa, Mangswa District, Sagaing Division, Myanmar.
2.
Smt. Minue @ Sangtei aged about 21 years D/o Jimit @ Kimi @ Yee Myint (Mohter) and (L) Chawmia @
Zaw Min Oo, a resident of Mangswa Khutan Village, P.O.
Monywa, Mangswa District, Sagaing Division, Myanmar.
3.
Baby Somia Thah @ Saw Myat Htet’s aged about 14 years D/o Jimit @ Kimi @ Yee Myint (Mother) and (L)
Chawmia @ Zaw Min Oo, a resident of Mangswa Khutan Village, P.S. Monywa, Mangswa District, Sagaing Division, Myanmar.
… Petitioners
- Versus –
N.
Ashok
Kumar
(IAS),
Commissioner
(Home),
Government of Manipur, Room No. 78, 1st Floor, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.
… Respondent
B E F O R E
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the petitioners
:
Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, Advocate
For the respondent
:
Mr. S. Chittaranjan, Additional Advocate General for Manipur assisted by Mr. A.
Priyokumar, Advocate
Date of order
:
16.06.2026
KHOIROM
BIPINCHAN
DRA SINGH
Digitally signed by
KHOIROM
BIPINCHANDRA SINGH
Date: 2026.06.16
17:40:05 +05'30'
P a g e 2 | 5
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
(ORAL)
[M. Sundar, CJ]
Captioned contempt case has been filed complaining of breach of ‘judgment and order dated 27.04.2026 made in W.P.(Crl.) No. 9 of 2026’ (‘said order’ for the sake of convenience).
Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel on record for contempt case petitioner is before this Court (Physical Court) and learned counsel submits that in and vide said order, this Court had directed respondent to dispose of ‘a representation dated 15.04.2026’ (‘said representation’ for the sake of brevity and convenience) as expeditiously as the official business of respondent would permit but in any event on or before 29.05.2026 but said representation had not been disposed of on or before 29.05.2026 and therefore captioned contempt case was presented in this Court on 04.06.2026.
Issue notice.
Mr. S. Chittaranjan, learned Additional Advocate General for Manipur assisted by Mr. A. Priyokumar, learned State counsel who is before this Court (Physical Court) accepts notice for the lone respondent.
Learned Additional Advocate General submits that said representation (representation dated 15.04.2026) has since been disposed of by respondent on 10.06.2026 vide proceedings/order P a g e 3 | 5
bearing reference No. H-2001/97/2026-HD-HD, has placed before this Court a copy and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
P a g e 4 | 5
Learned State counsel submits that there was a very short delay owing to unavoidable and urgent work for the respondent and regrets the delay of about 12 (twelve) days. This explanation is accepted. To be noted, Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel for contempt case petitioner has been favoured with a copy of the afore- referred 10.06.2026 proceedings made by lone respondent. Learned counsel has received the same.
Adverting to paragraph No. 3 of the afore-referred 10.06.2026 proceedings, learned Additional Advocate General further submits that Government of Manipur has taken steps to repatriate/deport the contempt case petitioners inter alia in exercise of powers under Section 11(1) of ‘Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of 1946)’ subject to receiving a response from the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India about which there is allusion in paragraph No. 4 of afore-referred 10.06.2026 proceedings.
In the light of narration supra, we record compliance, discharge lone respondent from captioned contempt case and write that lone respondent stands purged of contempt making it clear that the captioned contempt case will now be given a closure by instant order.
Before writing the concluding paragraph, though obvious, this Court deems it appropriate to make it clear that it is open to the contempt case petitioners to come back this Court with a suitable P a g e 5 | 5
petition regarding repatriation/deportation, if the contempt case petitioners has any further/other issue/s. If such a scenario unfurls, such petition/s will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.
Apropos, captioned contempt case is disposed of as closed purging the lone respondent of contempt and discharging the lone respondent from the captioned contempt case. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
CHIEF JUSTICE Bipin
FR/NFR