Manipur High Court
PIL/7/2026 of Khangembam Arunkumar Singh and 2 Ors Vs Union of India and 3 Ors on 28 May 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL PIL No.7 of 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.
Sl. 1(suppl.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
PIL No.7 of 2026
Khangembam Arunkumar Singh & 2 Ors. Petitioners Vs.
Union of India & 3 Ors. Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA (ORDER)
(Order of the Court was made by Mr. M. Sundar, CJ)
29.05.2026
When the captioned matter is called, Mr. Puyam. Tomcha Meetei, Public Interest Litigation (PiL) petitioner No.2 is before this Court. To be noted, PiL petitioner No.2 is an advocate and a member of this Bar. PiL petitioner No.2 submitted that he wants to appear party in person in the captioned PiL but captioned PiL has been filed through counsel and names of the counsel on record for PiL petitioners are shown in the cause list.
Faced with the above situation, Mr. Puyam. Tomcha Meetei, learned counsel for himself and on behalf of PiL petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 [to be noted, PiL petitioner No.1, Mr. Khangembam Arunkumar Singh is also present in Court(physical Court)] sought leave of this Court to withdraw captioned PiL but made a further plea to preserve the JOHN TELEN KOM Digitally signed by JOHN TELEN KOM Date: 2026.05.29 17:13:53 +05'30'
rights and contentions of the PIL petitioners to come to this Court again by filing a petition as party in person, saying so, PiL petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have made an endorsement in the case file and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
The afore-referred request of PiL petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 for themselves and on behalf of Pil petitioner No.3 is acceded to. To be noted, if the petitioners file a petition as party in person, though obvious it is made clear that such a petition will be first tested for admission on its own merits and in accordance with law.
In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned PiL is disposed of as withdrawn/closed albeit with preservation of rights in the aforesaid manner and observations set out supra. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
CHIEF JUSTICE
John Kom