Huidrom Aparjit Singh vs The State Of Manipur
2026 Latest Caselaw 2939 Mani

Manipur High Court

Huidrom Aparjit Singh vs The State Of Manipur on 16 April, 2026

Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh

Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh

        Digitally
Lucy    signed by
        Lucy
                                                                         Item Nos. 6

Gurum   Gurumayum          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
        Date:
        2026.04.17                   AT IMPHAL
ayum    09:46:43
        +05'30'
                                 WP(C) No. 257 of 2026

               1. Huidrom Aparjit Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o
                     Gandhar Singh of Kongba Kshetri Leikai near Karak
                     Khong Community Hall, No. 1, P.O Singjamei & P.S.
                     Irilbung, Imphal East, Manipur.
                                                              ...Petitioner/s
                                          Vrs.


                 1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief
                      Secretary, Govt. of Manipur Old Secretariat, Imphal,
                      Manipur - 795001.
                 2. The Commission/Secretary (Power), Govt. of Manipur
                      Old Secretariat, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
                 3. Manipur State Power Company Limited (MSPCL),
                      represented by its Managing Director, Imphal
                      Manipur - 795001.
                                                             ...Respondent/s

-B E F O R E-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

For the petitioner : Mrs. O. Momota, Sr. Advocate

Ms. P. Beti, Advocate

For the respondents : Ch. Sundari, GA.

                     Date of order          : 16.04.2026.




                                                                              Page 1
                            (O R D E R)
                              ORAL

[1]         Mrs. O. Momota, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms.

P. Beti, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and

Mrs. Ch. Sundar, learned GA appeared on behalf of the

respondents.

[2] In view of the limited prayer made on behalf of the

petitioner and as agreed to by both the counsel appearing parties,

the present writ petition is being disposed of at the motion stage

itself.

[3] It has been submitted by the learned Sr. counsel

appearing for the petitioner that for redressing the grievances

raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition, the petitioner

has already approached the Managing Director, Manipur State

Power Company Limited (respondent no. 3) by submitting a

representation dated 03.03.2023 and that the said representation

is still pending for consideration and disposal. The learned Sr.

counsel further submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied for

the time being if the present writ petition is disposed of by

directing the respondent no. 3 to consider the said representation

submitted by the petitioner on its own merit and strictly in terms

Page 2 of the applicable law and to disposed of the same by issuing a

speaking order within a stipulated period.

[4] Mrs. Ch. Sundari, learned GA appearing for the

respondents fairly submitted that as the prayer made on behalf

of the petitioner is confined to consideration and disposal of the

representation submitted by him, there is no objection on the part

of the respondents to disposed of the present writ petition as

prayed for on behalf of the petitioner.

[5] Considering the submission advanced by the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner and on perusal of the record,

this Court is of the considered view that it will be in the interest

of justice to issue the following directions:-

(i) The respondent no.3 is hereby directed to

consider the aforesaid representation dated

03.03.2023 submitted by the petitioner on its

own merit and strictly in terms of the applicable

law and to disposed of the same by issuing a

speaking order.

(ii) It is made clear that the whole exercise should

be completed within a period of 2(two) months

from the date of receipt of certified copy of this

order.

Page 3

(iii) It is made clear that the above direction have

been issued without considering the merit of the

present writ petition.

[6] With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition

is disposed of.

JUDGE

Lucy

Page 4