Manipur High Court
MC(WP(C))/277/2026 of Kh Samson Aimol and 9 Ors Vs State of Manipur and 92 Ors on 1 June 2026
| 4 Item Nos. 4-5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL WP(C) No.
P a g e 1 | 4
Item Nos. 4-5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 147 of 2019
1. Kh. Samson Aimol, aged about 18 years, S/o. Kh.
Rengsinril Aimol, a resident of Aimol Khunyai village, P.O. & P.S. Tengnoupal & District Chandel, Manipur- 795135 and 9 others.
… Petitioners
- Versus –
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat, Babupara, P.O. & P.S.- Imphal, Manipur – 795001 and 6 others.
… Respondents
With MC(WP(C)) No. 277 of 2026
Ref:- WP(C) No. 147 of 2019
1. Kh. Samson Aimol, aged about 23 years, S/o. Kh.
Rengsinril Aimol, a resident of Aimol Khunyai village, P.O. & P.S. Tengnoupal & District Chandel, Manipur- 795135 and 9 others.
… Applicants
- Versus –
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat, Babupara, P.O. & P.S.- Imphal, Manipur – 795001 and 92 others.
… Respondents
B E F O R E
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the petitioners/
applicants
:
Mr. Serto T Kom, Advocate
Ms. Deborah L.S. Serto, Advocate
For the respondents
:
Mr. H. Debendra, Deputy Advocate
General, Manipur instructed by Mr.
SHAMURAILATPAM
SUSHIL SHARMA
Digitally signed by
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
Date: 2026.06.02 18:14:26 +05'30'
P a g e 2 | 4
H. Dimal Kumar, State Counsel for
respondent Nos. 1 to 6;
Ms. I. Bimola Devi, Advocate for
respondent No. 7 (MPSC)
Mr. Niraj Bobby Paonam, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 8 to 93
(excluding respondent Nos. 73 and
Date of hearing & order :
02.06.2026
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
[M. Sundar, CJ]
Captioned ‘MC’ (‘Miscellaneous Case’) has been taken out by the writ petitioners seeking amendments to the writ petition.
Mr. Serto T Kom, learned counsel for the MC applicants submits that the writ petitioners had inadvertently sought a writ of certiorari rather than a writ of declaration. Writ petitioners also realize that some other inadvertent errors have crept in and omissions have happened. This has necessitated the captioned MC with amendment plea is learned counsel’s say.
As regards the respondents, Mr. H. Dimal Kumar, learned State Counsel led by Mr. H. Debendra, learned senior counsel and learned Deputy Advocate General, Manipur is before this Court (physical Court) on behalf of ‘R1 to R6’ (‘respondent Nos. 1 to 6’) {official respondents}. As regards ‘R7’ (‘respondent No. 7’) {‘MPSC’ (‘Manipur Public Service Commission’)} Ms. I. Bimola Devi, learned Standing Counsel for MPSC is before this Court. As regards ‘R8 to R93’ (‘respondent Nos. 8 to 93’ excluding respondent Nos. 73 and 92) {private respondents}, Mr. Niraj Bobby Paonam, learned counsel is on the VC (Video Conferencing) platform.
P a g e 3 | 4
Considering the nature of the amendments sought, all the afore-referred counsel/senior counsel for all the respondents very fairly submit that the amendments per se are not being opposed, they being procedural in nature but the contents post amendment may have to be opposed.
In the light of the afore-referred scenario, this Court finds that allowing the amendment applications, carrying out amendments and then completing pleadings afresh may be very cumbersome procedurally and the simpler way out would be to withdraw the captioned main ‘WP’ (‘Writ Petition’) and grant liberty to the writ petitioners to file a fresh writ petition on the same subject incorporating the amendments sought, leaving open all rights and contentions of the respondents to oppose the fresh writ petition except the ground of latches. The fresh writ petition, if filed within a fortnight from today i.e., on or before 16.06.2026, the same shall be construed as one filed on 21.02.2019 which is the date on which WP(C) No. 147 of 2019 was filed.
To be noted, Mr. Serto T Kom, learned counsel on record for the petitioners has made an endorsement in the case file in this regard and scanned reproduction of the same is as follows :
P a g e 4 | 4
In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning set out supra, captioned MC is disposed of as closed in the aforesaid manner and the captioned main WP is disposed of as withdrawn/closed albeit with preservation of rights and contentions of both sides as set out supra in the observations. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE FR/NFR Sushil
P.S. I : Upload forthwith P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in High Court website inter-alia as the same is QR coded.