Manipur High Court
Soraijam Maipak Meetei vs Union Of India & Anr on 12 February, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
LAIRENMAYUM
INDRAJEET
SINGH Item Nos. 1 & 2
Digitally signed by
LAIRENMAYUM INDRAJEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
SINGH
Date: 2025.02.13 10:15:47
AT IMPHAL
+05'30'
W.P. (C) No. 708 of 2024
With
MC(WP(C)) No. 789 of 2024
Soraijam Maipak Meetei ....Petitioner
- Versus -
Union of India & anr. ...Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
12.02.2025
[1] Present Mr. W. Shantikumar Roy, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Mrs. Ch. Sundari, learned G.A. for the State; and Mr. W.
Darakeshwar, learned Sr. PCCG appearing on behalf of respondent No.
[2] By the present writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner approached this Court challenging
the order dated 02.06.2015 passed by this Court in RSA No. 1 of 2006
thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein. The
petitioner earlier approached the Court of Civil Judge Jr. Division,
Bishnupur by way of O.S. No. 15 of 1998 and vide judgment & order
dated 29.04.2005, the suit regarding the 36 Meitei Mayek Script was
decreed. However, in the appeal filed by the respondents herein, vide
order dated 20.01.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2005, the judgment &
decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bishnupur,
was set-aside and vide impugned order dated 02.06.2015, this Court
dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioner herein.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court with
the following prayer:-
(i) To register the case as a writ petition (Civil) before the Hon'ble
Lordships.
(ii) To pass orders restoring the decrees of the Civil Judge Jr.
Division, Bishnupur, Manipur.
(iii) To issue orders and directions to recommend the Script
propounded by the Plaintiff to be the oldest/earliest and real
Meetei Script/Manipur Script.
(iv) To de-recognise the Script of 27 alphabets of the opposite party,
by cancelling the special gazette No. 282 dated 2/12/1996.
(v) To pass orders for study in the educational institutions and
schools the Script of the Plaintiffs.
(vi) To pass orders to announce in the official Gazette the Script of
the plaintiff to be official Script of Manipuri Language/Meetei Lon
for all purposes.
(vii) To pass orders for investigating into the fraudulent acts of the
opposite parties- misleading the Government without re-
constituting the Expert Committee the
announcement/publication in the Special Gazette No. 282 the
recommendation of the Script 27 for State language.
(viii) To pass appropriate decrees for the end of justice.
[3] Learned counsel for the respondents raised the objection of
the maintainability of the writ petition challenging the order passed by
this Court in second appeal on the ground that the writ petition cannot
be preferred against an order passed by this Court on judicial side.
[4] This Court has perused the materials on record and heard
the submission of the parties. The prayer No. 2 in the present writ
petition is for restoration of the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge
Jr. Division, Bishnupur, Manipur. This Court is of the opinion that the
prayer is to set-aside the judgment & order dated 20.01.2006 passed by
the learned District Judge, Manipur West in Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2005
as well as order dated 02.06.2015 passed by this Court in RSA No. 1 of
2006. In other words, the present writ petition challenges the
correctness of the decision of the learned District Judge, Imphal West
as well as the order passed by this Court in second appeal. It may be
noted that a 7 Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & ors. Vrs. State of Maharastra & ors.
AIR 1967 SC1 held that writ petition under Article 226 & Article 32 of
the Constitution is not maintainable against any judicial order. In the
present case, the order under challenged being the correctness of the
order passed by the learned District Judge as well as by this Court and
according to the decision of the Naresh Shridhar (supra), the writ
petition under Article 226 as well as 227 would not be maintainable. It
is also clarified that the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is also not maintainable against any order passed by the High
Court on its judicial side and the same is to examine correctness of an
order passed by a Court or tribunal under the supervision of the High
Court.
[5] In view of the above proportion of law, the writ petition is
dismissed on the ground of maintainability, however, liberty is granted
to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for his grievances
as per law.
[6] Misc. application is also disposed of.
JUDGE
Indrajeet
