Manipur High Court
MC(WA)/33/2026 of STATE OF MANIPUR AND 2 OTHERS Vs Laishram Amusana Singh and 8 ors on 3 June 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC(WA)No.33 of
Sl. No.2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(WA)No.33 of 2026
Ref: W.A. No.6 of 2018
The State of Manipur & 2 ors.
Applicants
Vs.
Shri Laishram Amusana Singh, aged about 68 years, S/o
(L) L. Khoidum Singh, a resident of Bamon Leikai Thangjam Leirak, Imphal East District, Manipur & 8 Ors.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
(ORDER)
(Order of the Court was made by Mr. M. Sundar, CJ)
04.06.2026
The following abbreviations/short forms have been used in this order:
Sl.
No.
Abbreviation/Short
Form/other references
for
the
sake
of
brevity/convenience
and/or clarity
Full Form/Expansion
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.
1. MC Miscellaneous Case (to be noted, MCs in plural and MC in Singular)
WA Writ appeal
3. WP Writ Petition
4. R1 Respondent No. 1 and similar abbreviations and short forms are used for the other respondents also JOHN TELEN KOM Digitally signed by JOHN TELEN KOM Date: 2026.06.05 13:28:57 +05'30'
Mr. Phungyo Zingkhai, learned State counsel for MC applicants is before this Court (physical Court).
Captioned MC has been taken out by writ appellants in the main WA i.e., WA No.6 of 2018.
Captioned MC has been taken out with a prayer to add two more respondents in the main WA. To be noted, there are already 9(nine) respondents in the main WA, this means that the two respondents sought to be added have to be added as R10 & R11. However, in the captioned MC, R1 to R9 in the main WA have not been arrayed as respondents, only the two respondents who are sought to be impleaded have been arrayed as respondents. This is plainly incorrect. The Registry ought not to have cleared the captioned MC and should have raised an objection in this regard. Registry is directed to be careful in scrutiny in days to come.
Faced with the above situation, Mr. Phungyo Zingkhai, learned State counsel for MC applicants sought leave of this Court to withdraw the captioned MC but made a prayer to preserve all the rights and contentions of MC applicants to come up with another MC with the same prayer but after making necessary course corrections. If such a course is adopted, this order shall be filed along with the new MC and Registry shall not entertain the new MC if the same is not filed along with this order.
A scanned reproduction of endorsement made by learned State counsel for MC applicants in the case file as regards withdrawal is as follows:
In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned MC is disposed of as withdrawn/closed albeit with preservation of rights and contentions of MC applicants and observations of this Court as above. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
CHIEF JUSTICE
John Kom