Manipur High Court
MC(WA)/12/2026 of State of Manipur and 3 Ors Vs Chingangbam Dilip Meitei and Anr on 26 March 2026
of 3 Supplementary-1, Sl. No. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Supplementary-1, Sl. No. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(WA) No. 12 of 2026
1. The
State
of
Manipur
represented
by
the
Secretary/Commissioner (Works), Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat, South Block, Imphal, Manipur -795001.
2. The Chief Engineer, PWD, Govt. of Manipur at Imphal.
3. The Commissioner/Secretary (Finance), Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat, South Block, Imphal, Manipur-
795001.
4. The Joint Secretary (Pension Cell), Govt. of Manipur.
……Appellants/Applicants
-Versus-
1. Chinganbam Dilip Meitei, aged about 48 years, S/o (L) Ch.
Ibocha Singh, Ex-Work charged Chowkidar, Mechanical Division No. 1, PWD, Manipur and a resident of Khurai Kongpal Chingabam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
….. Respondent
2. The Accountant General, Manipur at Imphal.
….. Proforma Respondent
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Appellants
::
Mr. S. Niranjan, Government Advocate
For the Respondents
::
Ms. Kh. Sapna, Advocate for respondent
No. 1 (Physical Court) led by Mr. N.
Umakanta, senior advocate on the Video
Conferencing (V.C.) platform;
Mr. S. Suresh, Advocate for respondent
No. 2.
SHAMURAILATPAM
SUSHIL SHARMA
Digitally signed by
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.27 19:59:17 +05'30'
Date of Hearing
::
27.03.2026
Date of Order
::
27.03.2026
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)
After some arguments, Mr. S. Niranjan, learned State Counsel sought leave of this Court to withdraw the captioned ‘Miscellaneous Case’ (‘MC’ for the sake of brevity) and he made a further plea to preserve all the rights and contentions of the ‘applicants’ (‘State’ collectively for the sake of convenience) to file another MC application with ‘Condonation of Delay’ (‘CoD’) prayer qua the same subject matter. To be noted, when the matter was taken up, it came to light that more than one phase in the 634 (six hundred thirty-four) days sought to be condoned remain unexplained and this necessitated the request of learned State Counsel. In this view of the matter, the request of learned State Counsel is acceded to.
In this regard, the endorsement made by the learned State Counsel in the case file (scanned reproduction) is as follows :
In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned MC is disposed of as withdrawn/closed albeit with preservation of rights and contentions of applicants/State as set out supra.
We refrain from imposing 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.