[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
Laishram Nabakumar Singh And 9 Others vs State Of Manipur And 8 Others on 15 December, 2025
Author: A.Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A.Guneshwar Sharma
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM
SUSHIL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.12.16 17:04:56 +05'30'
Sl. Nos. 3, 4 & 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Review. Pet. No. 37 of 2025
Laishram Nabakumar Singh and 9 others
Petitioners
Vs.
State of Manipur and 8 others
Respondents
Clubbed with Review. Pet. No. 39 of 2025
With Review. Pet. No. 38 of 2025
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
ORDER
(Order of the court was made by M. Sundar, CJ)
15.12.2025
[1] Captioned 3 (three) review petitions have been filed by
third parties seeking review of a common judgment dated 29.08.2025
made in Writ Appeal Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of 2024 ('impugned common
judgment' for convenience).
[2] Mr. S. Biswajit, learned senior advocate instructed by Mr.
W. Sanatomba Meitei, learned counsel on record for the review
petitioners is before this Court.
[3] Learned senior counsel, adverting to orders dated
07.11.2025 and 02.12.2025 made in MC(Review.Pet.) Nos. 13, 14 and
15 of 2025, submitted that for the selfsame reasons, the captioned
review petitions are being pursued. To be noted, the afore-referred
orders dated 07.11.2025 and 02.12.2025 [to be noted, one order dated
07.11.2025 in MC(Review.Pet.) No. 13 of 2025 and two separate orders
both dated 02.12.2025 one in MC(Review.Pet.) No. 14 of 2025 and
another in MC(Review. Pet.) No. 15 of 2025] are orders vide which the
review petitioners in the captioned Review Petitions were granted third
party leave.
[4] This Court deems it appropriate to extract and reproduce
the aforesaid 3 (three) orders which read as follows :
'07.11.2025
[1] Captioned Misc. case has been filed by 10 (ten)
individuals seeking leave to file third party review qua an order
dated 29.08.2025 in W.A. No. 11 of 2024.
[2] Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei, learned senior advocate
instructed by Mr. W. Sanatomba Meitei, learned counsel on
record for the applicants submits that the petitioners were
members of Administrative Committees of various Gram
Panchayats and Administrators of various Zilla Parishads in State
of Manipur, having been appointed either by the State
Government or pursuant to an interim order dated 29.02.2024
made in a Misc. case in W.A. No. 11 of 2024 and/or are orders in
other Misc. cases in connected appeals being W.A. Nos. 9 and 10
of 2024.
[3] In the normal circumstances, grant of leave to a
third party to seek review of a judicial order of a court is matter
between the court and the petitioners seeking leave but in the
instant case, considering the nature of the matter which involves
larger public interest, this court issued notice to the respondents
on 26.09.2025.
[4] Post issue of notice, today, Ms. Thanyomi
Keishing, learned State counsel has entered appearance on behalf
of R1 to R3 and Ms. Th. Lekhakumari, learned counsel, has
entered appearance on behalf the R4 to R9. Mr. Lenin Hijam,
learned Advocate General and senior counsel appears on behalf
of Ms. Thanyomi Keishing, learned State Counsel as regards R1
to R3 and Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior advocate appears on
behalf Ms. Lekhakumari for R4 to R9.
[5] At the outset, Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei very fairly
submitted that the petitioners in the captioned Misc. case accept
the verdict dated 29.08.2025 which is a common order in W.A.
Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of 2024 but they are seeking very limited
review as regards ongoing works pertaining to civic amenities.
This submission of the learned senior counsel made on
instructions from the counsel on record is recorded.
[6] As regards the respondents, learned Advocate
General very fairly submitted that the constitutional right of the
petitioners to seek limited review as above cannot be curtailed or
stifled and that the State itself has already filed a review petition
but review petition of State is not limited and it is a full-fledged
review.
[7] As regards private respondents, senior advocate
Mr. HS Paonam submitted that other members of Administrative
Committees of various Gram Panchayats and Administrators of
various Zilla Parishads were before the court when the Division
Bench rendered the common order dated 29.08.2025 in W.A.
Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of 2024 and therefore, the petitioners cannot
now be heard to contend that review is necessary.
[8] We carefully considered the submissions made on
both sides. We find that the fair submission made by learned
senior counsel for petitioners that what is sought is not a full-
fledged review and only a limited review and that too limited to
civic amenities for which work is in progress as larger public
interest comes into play, we deem it appropriate to allow the
captioned misc. case but with a rider that only a limited review as
projected by the petitioner will be heard out, obviously, on its
own merits and in accordance with law.
[9] Captioned Misc. case ordered/disposed of in the
aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.'
'02.12.2025
[1] Captioned Misc. case has been filed by 10 (ten)
individuals seeking leave to file third party review qua an order
dated 29.08.2025 in W.A. No. 10 of 2024.
[2] Mr. W. Sanatomba Meitei, learned counsel on
record for the applicants submits that the petitioners were
members of Administrative Committees of various Gram
Panchayats and Administrators of various Zilla Parishads in State
of Manipur, having been appointed either by the State
Government or pursuant to an interim order dated 29.02.2024
made in Misc. cases in W.A. No.10 of 2024 and in connected
appeals being W.A. Nos. 9 and 11 of 2024.
[3] In the normal circumstances, grant of leave to a
third party to seek review of a judicial order of a court is a matter
between the court and the petitioners seeking leave but in the
instant case, considering the nature of the matter which involves
larger public interest, this court issued notice to the respondents
on 26.09.2025.
[4] Post issue of notice, today, Ms. Thanyomi
Keishing, learned State counsel has entered appearance on behalf
of R1 to R8. To be noted, 'R1' denotes 1st respondent and similar
abbreviations are being used with regard to other respondents
also in the instant order. Mr. A. Arunkumar, learned counsel, has
entered appearance on behalf of the R10, R11, R12, R14, R15,
R16, R17, R19 and R20. Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate
General and senior counsel appears on behalf of Ms. Thanyomi
Keishing, learned State Counsel. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned
senior advocate appears on behalf of Mr. A. Arunkumar for
private respondents set out in the earlier part of this paragraph.
As regards R9, Mr. Ch. Momon, learned counsel is before this
Court. To be noted, with regard to other private respondents
though they have been duly served and their names have been
shown in the cause list, they have neither entered appearance
through a counsel nor chosen to come before this Court.
Therefore, the matter is being heard out on the basis of the parties
who are before this Court.
[5] At the outset, Mr. W. Sanatomba, learned counsel
very fairly submitted that the petitioners in the captioned Misc.
case accept the verdict dated 29.08.2025 which is a common
order in W.A. Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of 2024 but they are seeking very
limited review as regards ongoing works pertaining to civic
amenities. This submission of the learned counsel for applicants
made on instructions is recorded.
[6] As regards the respondents, learned Advocate
General very fairly submitted that the constitutional right of the
petitioners to seek limited review as above cannot be curtailed or
stifled and that the State itself has already filed a review petition
but review petition of State is not limited and it is a full-fledged
review.
[7] As regards private respondents, senior advocate
Mr. HS Paonam and Mr. Ch. Momon submitted that other
members of Administrative Committees of various Gram
Panchayats and Administrators of various Zilla Parishads were
before the court when the Division Bench rendered the common
order dated 29.08.2025 in W.A. Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of 2024 and
therefore, the petitioners cannot now be heard to contend that
review is necessary. However, Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior
advocate and Mr. Ch. Momon, learned counsel with the usual
fairness, submitted that as MC(Review. Pet.) No. 13 of 2025 has
been allowed by this Court by an order dated 07.11.2025, a
similar order can be made in the captioned Misc. case also.
[8] We carefully considered the submissions made on
both sides. We find that the fair submission made by learned
counsel for applicants that what is sought is not a full-fledged
review and only a limited review and that too limited to civic
amenities for which work is in progress, as larger public interest
comes into play, we deem it appropriate to allow the captioned
misc. case but with a rider that only a limited review as projected
by the applicants will be heard out, obviously, on its own merits
and in accordance with law.
[9] Captioned Misc. case ordered/disposed of in the
aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.
[10] The main review petitions on being numbered
pursuant to the third party leave that has been granted vide instant
order and also review petition pursuant to third party leave
granted in MC(Review. Pet.) No. 13 of 2025 on 07.11.2025 shall
be listed along with the State review petitioners being Review
Pet. No. 33 of 2025, Review Pet. No. 34 of 2025 and Review Pet.
No. 35 of 2025 on 15.12.2025.'
'02.12.2025
[1] Captioned Misc. case has been filed by 10 (ten)
individuals seeking leave to file third party review qua an order
dated 29.08.2025 in W.A. No. 9 of 2024.
[2] Mr. W. Sanatomba Meitei, learned counsel on
record for the applicants submits that the petitioners were
members of Administrative Committees of various Gram
Panchayats and Administrators of various Zilla Parishads in State
of Manipur, having been appointed either by the State
Government or pursuant to an interim order dated 29.02.2024
made in Misc. cases in W.A. No.9 of 2024 and in connected
appeals being W.A. Nos. 10 and 11 of 2024.
[3] In the normal circumstances, grant of leave to a
third party to seek review of a judicial order of a court is a matter
between the court and the petitioners seeking leave but in the
instant case, considering the nature of the matter which involves
larger public interest, this court issued notice to the respondents
on 26.09.2025.
[4] Post issue of notice, today, Ms. Thanyomi
Keishing, learned State counsel has entered appearance on behalf
of R1 to R8. To be noted, 'R1' denotes first respondent and
similar abbreviations are being used with regard to other
respondents also in the instant order. Mr. A. Arunkumar, learned
counsel, has entered appearance on behalf of the R16, R17, R18,
R19 and R21. Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate General and
senior counsel appears on behalf of Ms. Thanyomi Keishing,
learned State Counsel. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior advocate
appears on behalf of Mr. A. Arunkumar for private respondents
set out in the earlier part of this paragraph. As regards R9 to R15,
Ms. Ayangleima, learned counsel is before this Court. To be
noted, with regard to other private respondents though they have
been duly served and their names have been shown in the cause
list, they have neither entered appearance through a counsel nor
chosen to come before this Court. Therefore, the matter is being
heard out on the basis of the parties who are before this Court.
[5] At the outset, Mr. W. Sanatomba, learned counsel
very fairly submitted that the petitioners in the captioned Misc.
case accept the verdict dated 29.08.2025 which is a common
order in W.A. Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of 2024 but they are seeking very
limited review as regards ongoing works pertaining to civic
amenities. This submission of the learned counsel for applicants
made on instructions is recorded.
[6] As regards the respondents, learned Advocate
General very fairly submitted that the constitutional right of the
petitioners to seek limited review as above cannot be curtailed or
stifled and that the State itself has already filed a review petition
but review petition of State is not limited and it is a full-fledged
review.
[7] As regards private respondents, senior advocate
Mr. HS Paonam and Ms. Ayangleima submitted that other
members of Administrative Committees of various Gram
Panchayats and Administrators of various Zilla Parishads were
before the court when the Division Bench rendered the common
order dated 29.08.2025 in W.A. Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of 2024 and
therefore, the petitioners cannot now be heard to contend that
review is necessary. However, Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior
advocate and Ms. Ayangleima, learned counsel with the usual
fairness, submitted that as MC(Review. Pet.) No. 13 of 2025 has
been allowed by this Court by an order dated 07.11.2025, a
similar order can be made in the captioned Misc. case also.
[8] We carefully considered the submissions made on
both sides. We find that the fair submission made by learned
counsel for applicants that what is sought is not a full-fledged
review and only a limited review and that too limited to civic
amenities for which work is in progress, as larger public interest
comes into play, we deem it appropriate to allow the captioned
misc. case but with a rider that only a limited review as projected
by the applicants will be heard out, obviously, on its own merits
and in accordance with law.
[9] Captioned Misc. case ordered/disposed of in the
aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.
[10] The main review petitions on being numbered
pursuant to the third party leave that has been granted vide instant
order and also review petition pursuant to third party leave
granted in MC(Review. Pet.) No. 13 of 2025 on 07.11.2025 shall
be listed along with the State review petitioners being Review
Pet. No. 33 of 2025, Review Pet. No. 34 of 2025 and Review Pet.
No. 35 of 2025 on 15.12.2025.'
[5] In the light of the narrative thus far, issue notice to
respondents.
[6] Mr. A. Arunkumar, learned counsel who is present in court
accepts notice for Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 in Review. Pet. No. 37 of 2025,
for Respondent Nos. 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20 in Review.
Pet. No. 39 of 2025 and for Respondent Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19 and 21 in
Review. Pet. No. 38 of 2025. Ms. L. Ayangleima, learned counsel who is
in court, accepts notice for Respondent Nos. 9 to 15 in Review. Pet. No.
38 of 2025. Mr. O. Ratan Kumar, learned State counsel who is in court,
accepts notice for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in Review. Pet. No. 37 of 2025,
for Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 in Review. Pet. No. 39 of 2025 and for
respondent Nos. 1 to 8 in Review. Pet. No. 39 of 2025 and for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 8 in Review. Pet. No. 38 of 2025. With regard to other
respondents, notice is returnable by 12.01.2026. Dasti notice is also
permitted.
[7] List on 12.01.2026.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil
