Manipur High Court
MC(WA)/28/2026 of Sanasam Boby Singh and 5 others Vs State of Manipur and 7 others on 21 May 2026
| 4 Item No. 3 – 4 (Supplementary) IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT
P a g e 1 | 4
Item No. 3 – 4 (Supplementary)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(WA) No. 28 of 2026
With
MC(WA) No. 29 of 2026
Sanasam Boby Singh & 5 Ors.
… Applicants
- Versus -
State of Manipur & 7 Ors.
B E F O R E
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
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]
22.05.2026
This common order will govern captioned 2 (two) ‘Miscellaneous Cases’ (‘MCs’ for the sake of convenience) and a ‘writ appeal (at pre-numbering stage) vide Filing No. 1114 of 2026, E-Filing No. AMN2024000036C202600030, CNR MNHC010012622026’ {‘intended WA’ for the sake of convenience and brevity} (filed on 20.05.2026).
When the matter was taken up, Mr. A. Manikanta, learned counsel on record for MC applicants led by Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior advocate was before this Court (Physical Court).
It came to light that an order of a Hon’ble Single Bench being order dated 03.06.2022 made in W.P.(C) No. 529 of 2016 (‘impugned KHOIROM BIPINCHAN DRA SINGH Digitally signed by KHOIROM BIPINCHANDRA SINGH Date: 2026.05.22 05:13:29 +05'30'
P a g e 2 | 4
order’ for the sake of convenience) which the MC applicants intended to assail in intra Court appeal i.e., intended WA is a consent order.
Learned senior counsel for MC applicants submitted that MC applicants, who were respondents before the Hon’ble Single Bench, were not aware that the writ petitioner association was a fictitious non-existent association and consent was given (before Hon’ble Single Bench) believing writ petitioner association to be a bonafide/genuine association. To put it differently, the case of the MC applicants is that if the MC applicants had known that writ petitioner association was not bonafide/genuine, they would not have given consent for making of the impugned order by the Hon’ble Single Bench. Before proceeding further, we make it clear that we express no any opinion or view on this submission of learned senior counsel for MC applicants owing to what we would be writing in the next paragraph infra.
Be that as it may, the afore-referred point at the highest can be raised as a review ground before Hon’ble Single Bench.
Faced with the above situation, Mr. A. Manikanta, learned counsel on record for MC applicants sought leave of this Court to withdraw the captioned two miscellaneous cases and intended WA and made a further request to preserve all the rights and contentions for the MC applicants to file a review petition (if so advised or if so desired), saying so, learned counsel for MC applicants made an endorsement in the case file and scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
P a g e 3 | 4
P a g e 4 | 4
In the light of narrative thus far, captioned two MC applications and intended intra Court appeal at pre-numbering stage i.e., intended WA vide Filing No.
of 2026, E-Filing No. AMN2024000036C202600030, CNR MNHC010012622026 (filed on 20.05.2026 in this Court) stand withdrawn/closed albeit with preservation of all rights and contentions of MC applicants in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
CHIEF JUSTICE Bipin