AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
16 paragraphs · 297 wordsKH. Nobin Singh, J
(Video Conference)
When the matter is taken up for consideration, it has been submitted by Shri A. Rommel, learned Advocate that Shri L. Shashibhushan, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 has not been able to file affidavit on account of the fact that his mother has expired recently.
It is submitted by Shri K. Modhusudon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that although notice was issued on 15-01-2021, no counter has so
far been filed by the respondent No. 4 and accordingly, he submits that last opportunity be given to the respondent No. 4 for filing affidavit.
Accordingly, last opportunity of three weeks' time is granted to the respondent No. 4 for filing affidavit failing which this court will proceed with the
matter whether an affidavit is filed by the respondent No. 4 or not.
Shri M. Devananda, learned Advocate submits that he appears for the respondent No. 3, Shri P. Ranjit Singh, Commissioner (Edn./S) and an affidavit
has been by him. He further submits that during the pendency of the contempt petition, he has been transferred to some other Department and Shri M.
Harekrishna, IAS has been posted as the Commissioner (Edn./S), Government of Manipur. On an oral application made by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Shri M.Harekrishna, IAS, Commissioner (Edn./S), Government of Manipur is impleaded as respondent No.5. The registry
shall make appropriate correction in the cause tiltle.
In view of the above, let notice be issued to the respondent No. 5, returnable on 28-07-2021.
Step be taken by the counsel appearing for the petitioner for service of notice upon respondent No. 5 by speed post and dasti in addition.
Copies of this order shall be sent to the counsels appearing for the parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail.