Smt. Roshnichand Tourangbam vs The State Of Manipur
2022 Latest Caselaw 504 Mani

KABORA Digitally signed
MBAM byKABORAMBAM                                                                           Item No. 20
SANDEE SANDEEP    SINGH
        Date: 2022.11.11

P SINGH
        15:10:27 +05'30'
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                                AT IMPHAL

                                               W.A. No. 113 of 2022

                            Smt. Roshnichand Tourangbam, aged about 49 years,
                            W/o Ksh Surchand Singh, a resident of Malom Tuliyaima,
                            P.O. Tulihal, P.S. Imphal West, Imphal West District,
                            Manipur. 795001.
                                                                                          Appellant
                                                    Vs.

                            1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Additional
                               Chief Secretary, (Social Welfare), Government of
                               Manipur, New Secretariat Building, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
                               Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
                            2. The Deputy Secretary (SW), Government of Manipur,
                               New Secretariat Building, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal
                               West District, Manipur - 795001.
                                                                             Official Respondents

3. Smt. Th. Lakhipriya Devi, CDPO, C/o Director of Social Welfare, Government of Manipur, 2nd MR Gate, Opposite to D.M. University, P.O. Imphal P.S. City Police, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795001.

4. Adaha P. Chapullo, CDPO, ICDS Project, Government of Manipur, 2nd MR Gate, opposite to D.M. University, P.O. Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.

Proforma Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

11.11.2022.

Sanjay Kumar (C.J.):

The appellant is the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 908 of 2022. She filed the

said writ petition assailing the transfer order dated 13.10.2022 in so far as it

pertained to her.

By order dated 21.10.2022, a learned Judge of this Court noted the

prayer of the writ petitioner to consider her plea for interim relief and adjourned

W.A. No. 113 of 2022 Page 1 the matter to 21.11.2022 to enable the respondents to file their counter affidavits.

The learned Judge stated that the Court would consider the prayer for granting

interim relief thereafter. It is this order that is subjected to challenge in this appeal.

Heard Ms. G. Pushpa, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. HS Paonam,

learned senior counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3; and Mr. S. Nepolean,

learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State authorities.

Rule 3 (2) in Chapter IV-A of the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019,

provides that an appeal would lie from the 'judgment and order' of a Single Judge

disposing of an application. Such an appeal is to be in Form 3A in Appendix -I, as

per Rule 3 (3). Form 3A specifies that Para 4 of the appeal is to indicate the points

which arose for decision before the Single Judge and para 5 is to indicate the

conclusions and decisions of the Single Judge. The High Court of Manipur Case

Management Rules, 2019, specify under Clause V that appeals to a Division Bench

would lie from interlocutory orders of a Single Judge in original jurisdiction matters,

including writ petitions.

Therefore, the prescription of the Rules is that an 'order indicating a

decision' must be passed by a learned Judge for an appeal to be maintainable. An

'adjournment' is not an 'order' as it does not embody any decision or conclusion on

the part of the learned Judge.

In effect, there is no appealable order in the case on hand whereby the

appellant can come before this Division Bench.

The writ appeal is utterly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed on

that short ground.

No order as to costs.

                       JUDGE                        CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep




W.A. No. 113 of 2022                                                               Page 2