Manipur High Court
MC(WA)/13/2026 of UNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS Vs Joydeep Deb M371204 and 27 Ors on 9 April 2026
of 3 Sl. No. 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC(WA) No.
Sl. No. 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(WA) No. 13 of 2026
Union of India, represented by Secretary to Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi – 1; & 2 others.
Applicants
Vs.
Joydeep Deb, M/371204, Hav/Store Keeper Technical (Medical), aged about 45 years, s/o Jatindra Ch. Deb now posted at present 24th Assam Rifles, Shangshak, C/o 99 APO, Pin No. 932024; & 27 Others.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For applicants
Mr. BR Sharma, Central Government
Counsel
Date of Order
10.04.2026
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.
ORDER
(M. Sundar, CJ)
Captioned ‘Miscellaneous Case’ (‘MC’ for the sake of brevity) has been filed with a Condonation of Delay (CoD) prayer.
Mr. BR Sharma, learned ‘Central Government Counsel’ (‘CGC’ for the sake of brevity) for MC applicants is before us on the Video Conferencing (VC) platform. KABORAMBA M SANDEEP SINGH Digitally signed by KABORAMBAM SANDEEP SINGH Date: 2026.04.10 13:04:47 +05'30'
Delay sought to be condoned is delay in filing an intra- court appeal assailing ‘an order dated 12.03.2025 made by a Hon’ble Single Bench in W.P. (C) No. 797 of 2021’ (‘impugned order’ for the sake of brevity)
When the matter was taken up, it came to light that more than one error has crept in the captioned MC and some of the errors are as follows:
(i) number of days of delay sought to be condoned has not been mentioned in the prayer, to be noted, only the period has been mentioned;
(ii) the afore-referred period has also been wrongly mentioned;
(iii) a tabulation of number of days of delay sought to be condoned set out in paragraph 4 is incorrect.
To be noted, the above are only illustrative and we make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the grounds on which condonation is sought.
Faced with the above situation, Mr. BR Sharma, learned CGC made a very fair request. Learned CGC sought leave of this Court to withdraw the captioned MC but made a plea to preserve all the rights and contentions of MC applicants to come up with another MC (after removing the inadvertent errors) seeking condonation of delay qua intra-court appeal as regards the same impugned order. This request is acceded to.
The afore-referred statement made at the Bar on the VC platform by Mr. BR Sharma, learned CGC for MC applicants is recorded. To be noted, as learned CGC for MC applicants is on the VC platform, learned CGC has made endorsement in this regard in the ‘Chat Box’ and the same reads as follows: ‘Hon'ble Court may be pleased to kindly allow me to withdraw the Misc. Application No. 13 of 2026, for condonation of delay, with liberty to file afresh.’
Registry is directed to be careful at the time of scrutiny in computations qua CoD applications.
In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned MC is disposed of as withdrawn/closed albeit with preservation of all rights and contentions of MC applicants in the manner set out supra. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
CHIEF JUSTICE Sandeep