Manipur High Court
MC(Review.Pet.)/9/2026 of Syed Murtaza Ahmed and Anr Vs M/s Koireng Food Imphal and Anr on 4 May 2026
No. 4 of 2026 & ors. Contd…/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT
Contd…/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2026
(Ref:- WP(C) No. 145 of 2025)
M/S Koireng Food Imphal represented by its Proprietor namely Shri Leisel Ngamshing Koireng, aged about 44 years, old S/o
L. Sonsorang Koireng, a permanent resident of Longa Koireng, Senapati, P.O. Langjing & P.S. New Keithelmanbi, Senapati District, Manipur – 795113.
…Petitioner
-Versus.-
The Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS in short)
represented by its Director having its Office at Regional Institute of Medical Sciences Complex, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West, Manipur – 795004.
… Respondent
In WP(C) No. 145 of 2025
M/S Koireng Food Imphal represented by its Proprietor namely Shri Leisel Ngamshing Koireng, aged about 44 years, old S/o
L. Sonsorang Koireng, a permanent resident of Longa Koireng, Senapati, P.O. Langjing & P.S. New Keithelmanbi, Senapati District, Manipur – 795113.
… Petitioner
-Versus-
The Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS in short)
represented by its Director having its Office at Regional Institute of Medical Sciences Complex, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West, Manipur – 795004.
With
IN. 1 to 3
+05'30'
Contd…/-
MC(Rev. Petn.) No. 8 of 2026 &
MC(Rev. Petn.) No. 9 of 2026
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the petitioner
:: Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Sr. Advocate
asstd. by Mr. Johnson, Advocate
For the respondent
:: Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, Sr. Panel
Counsel
Date of hearing & order :: 05-05-2026
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
Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Johnson, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Vijanayand Sharma, learned senior panel counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent.
At the outset, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he has received instruction from the petitioner that the present review petition can be disposed of with a simple direction to the respondent that till the tender process in respect of allocation of the Canteen in question is completed, the petitioner may be allowed to continue in the earlier old Canteen. It has further been submitted that the petitioner may be allowed to submit a representation to the concerned authorities of the RIMS to participate in any tender process for opening a new Canteen or to allocate an alternative site to run a new Canteen and the respondent be directed to consider such representation and to dispose of the same by issuing a speaking order.
Contd…/-
Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, learned senior panel counsel appearing for the respondent fairly submitted that he has no objection in disposing of this writ petition in terms of the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
In view of the submission made above, the present revision petition is hereby disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) The respondent is directed to allow the petitioner to continue running his Canteen in the old Canteen premises till completion of the proceeding of the tender process for allocation of the new Canteen;
(ii) The petitioner is at liberty to submit appropriate representation to the authorities for allowing him to participate in any further tender process for allocation of Canteen and/ or to allocate a new site to enable him to run a new Canteen. It is made clear that in the event such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the authorities should consider and dispose of the same by issuing a speaking order; and
(iii) It is made clear that the petitioner should vacate the old Canteen as soon as the process for tender is completed.
With the aforesaid directions, the present revision petition as well as the connected applications are disposed of.
JUDGE Devananda