Indira Sarangthem vs Athokpam Herojit Singh; & Ors.

Kempaiah Somashekar, CJ

The proceeding in Review. Pet. No. 24 of 2025 is clubbed with proceeding in Review. Pet. No. 25 of 2025 as well as proceeding in MC [W.P. (C)] No. 66 of 2025 and proceeding in W.P. (C) No. 76 of 2025.

Learned senior counsel, namely Mr. M. Devananda, is present before the Court physically for the petitioner in Review. Pet. No. 24 of 2025, respondent No. 2 in Review. Pet. No. 25 of 2025 and respondent No. 3 in W.P. (C) No. 76 of 2025.

Learned senior counsel, namely, Mr. BP Sahu, is present before the Court physically for the petitioner in Review. Pet. No. 25 of 2025, respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in Review. Pet. No. 24 of 2025 and respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in W.P. (C) No. 76 of 2025.

Learned senior counsel namely, Mr. S. Biswajit, is present before the Court physically for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 76 of 2025 and respondent No. 1 in Review. Pet. No. 24 of 2025 and Review. Pet. No. 24 of 2025.

However, the review petitions have been initiated under Chapter IX of the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019 whereby seeking for review of the order dated 28.04.2025 rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MC [W.P. (C)] No. 144 of 2025 arising out of W.P. (C) No. 76 of 2025. The order rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in MC [W.P. (C)] No. 144 of 2025 has been seeking for intervention in terms of the review petitions have been filed.

Accordingly, it is clarified the position in which in the presence of the learned senior counsel in the review proceeding.

Whereas the proceeding in W.P. (C) No. 76 of 2025 is initiated by the petitioner against the respondents seeking for quashing the order dated 24.01.2025 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati in O.A. No. 042/00213/2024 and Misc. Application No. 042/00107/2024. Mr. M. Devananda, Learned senior counsel for respondent No. 3 in the writ petition, submits that he has already filed some sort of an objection to this writ petition and copy of the same has also been furnished to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. In that objection, learned senior counsel has raised the ground of maintainability of the writ petition. This statement made by the aforesaid learned senior counsel is taken on record.

However, Mr. BP Sahu, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in the writ petition, has not filed any sort of objection to this writ petition but he has relied upon which has been filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati and this statement which is made by the learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in the writ petition is also taken on record.

However, Mr. BP Sahu, learned senior counsel is directed to furnish copy of the said objection which has been filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati, in this matter for the purpose of reference and copy of the same shall be furnished to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, namely, Mr. S. Biswajit in the writ petition.

Accordingly, made an observation.

Keeping in view the status in these matters learned senior counsel for the parties in the aforesaid review petitions as well as the proceeding in writ petition be directed to submit in writing in respect of issues to be addressed in between the parties to these proceedings and the same shall be submitted on the next date of hearing for consideration.

In the meanwhile, Mr. M. Deevananda, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 3 in the writ petition has placed reliance in the case of Union of India and others. Vs. Ranbir Singh Rathaur and ors. reported in (2006) 11 SCC 696, wherein observation has been made in para No. 42 the High Court shall first decide the preliminary objections raised by the present appellants about the non-maintainability of the writ petitions. This para No. 42 has been relied by Mr. M. Devananda, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 3 in this writ proceeding.

Accordingly, made an observation.

Consequently, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition shall respond to this.

However, keeping in view the status in all these matters are concerned, it is deemed appropriate that learned counsel for the parties are directed to facilitate the judgment of Parsion Devi and ors vs. Sumitri Devi and ors. reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715

Accordingly, made an observation.

Consequently, the proceeding in W.P. (C) No. 76 of 2025 has to be heard firstly and thereafter the proceedings in review petitions as well as the miscellaneous application will be heard.

Hence, these matters would be listed on 04.06.2025.