[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
Union Of India vs Joydeep Deb on 10 April, 2026
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
KABORAMBA Digitally
KABORAMBAM
signed by
M SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH
Date: 2026.04.10
SINGH 13:04:47 +05'30'
Sl. No. 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(WA) No. 13 of 2026
Union of India, represented by Secretary to Ministry
of Home Affairs, Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi - 1; & 2 others.
Applicants
Vs.
Joydeep Deb, M/371204, Hav/Store Keeper Technical
(Medical), aged about 45 years, s/o Jatindra Ch. Deb
now posted at present 24th Assam Rifles, Shangshak,
C/o 99 APO, Pin No. 932024; & 27 Others.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For applicants Mr. BR Sharma, Central Government
Counsel
Date of Order 10.04.2026
ORDER
(M. Sundar, CJ)
[1] Captioned 'Miscellaneous Case' ('MC' for the sake of
brevity) has been filed with a Condonation of Delay (CoD) prayer.
[2] Mr. BR Sharma, learned 'Central Government Counsel'
('CGC' for the sake of brevity) for MC applicants is before us on the
Video Conferencing (VC) platform.
[3] Delay sought to be condoned is delay in filing an intra-
court appeal assailing 'an order dated 12.03.2025 made by a Hon'ble
Single Bench in W.P. (C) No. 797 of 2021' ('impugned order' for the
sake of brevity)
[4] When the matter was taken up, it came to light that more
than one error has crept in the captioned MC and some of the errors
are as follows:
(i) number of days of delay sought to be condoned
has not been mentioned in the prayer, to be
noted, only the period has been mentioned;
(ii) the afore-referred period has also been
wrongly mentioned;
(iii) a tabulation of number of days of delay sought
to be condoned set out in paragraph 4 is
incorrect.
[5] To be noted, the above are only illustrative and we make
it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the grounds on which
condonation is sought.
[6] Faced with the above situation, Mr. BR Sharma, learned
CGC made a very fair request. Learned CGC sought leave of this Court
to withdraw the captioned MC but made a plea to preserve all the rights
and contentions of MC applicants to come up with another MC (after
removing the inadvertent errors) seeking condonation of delay qua
intra-court appeal as regards the same impugned order. This request is
acceded to.
[7] The afore-referred statement made at the Bar on the VC
platform by Mr. BR Sharma, learned CGC for MC applicants is recorded.
To be noted, as learned CGC for MC applicants is on the VC platform,
learned CGC has made endorsement in this regard in the 'Chat Box' and
the same reads as follows:
'Hon'ble Court may be pleased to kindly allow me to
withdraw the Misc. Application No. 13 of 2026, for
condonation of delay, with liberty to file afresh.'
[8] Registry is directed to be careful at the time of scrutiny in
computations qua CoD applications.
[9] In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned MC is
disposed of as withdrawn/closed albeit with preservation of all rights
and contentions of MC applicants in the manner set out supra. There
shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep
