[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
Aribam Dhananjoy Singh vs State Of Manipur And 3 Others on 26 February, 2026
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
SHAMURAILATPAM Digitally signed by
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2026.02.26 19:26:33 +05'30'
Suppl.-1, Sl. No. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 173 of 2026
Aribam Dhananjoy Singh
Petitioner
Vs.
State of Manipur and 3 others
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
(ORDER)
s
(Order of the Court was made by M. Sundar, CJ)
26.02.2026.
[1] Mr. Meihoubam Rakesh Singh, learned counsel on record
for the writ petitioner is before this Court.
[2] At the outset, it is seen that a unique situation has arisen.
In the captioned 'Writ Petition' ('WP' for the sake of brevity), the writ
petitioner has primarily sought issue of a writ of Quo Warranto qua
appointment of R4 (Smt. Nungshitombi Athokpam, aged about 60 years,
W/O Sanjenbam Jogendro Singh, a resident of Uripok Bachaspati Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur) as State Information
Commissioner, Manipur Information Commission.
[3] Learned counsel submits that the writ petitioner who is a
journalist is espousing a public cause, writ petitioner is a public-spirited
person and he has filed the captioned WP but the writ petition was filed
resorting to Category Code No. '10043' vide Appendix - 22 of 'High Court
of Manipur Rules, 2019' ('said Rules'). Code '10043' is for matters
pertaining to 'Selection and appointment'. Learned counsel for WP
petitioner very fairly, adverting inter-alia to paragraph 1 of the WP
pleadings as well as the pre-WP representation sent by writ petitioner
being a representation dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure-A/10) submitted that
though the writ petitioner is espousing a public cause, resorting to Public
Interest Litigation Code i.e., Code No. '10194' may become a hurdle as
the captioned matter can be construed as a service matter and the issue
of service matter in a PIL may arise. We place on record our appreciation
for the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for WP petitioner.
[4] A careful perusal of the WP pleading, the pre-writ petition
representation being representation dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure-A/10),
the prayer in WP and the nature of the legal grind qua captioned WP
bring to light that this is a case of importance and complexity. Therefore,
as this Bench is presided by the Chief Justice who is the master of roster,
exercising powers under Rule 3(1) and proviso thereat of said Rules, the
captioned matter is directed to be listed before Division Bench (DB)
presided by Chief Justice. To be noted, Rule 3(1) and the proviso thereat
of said Rules makes it clear that listing before Single Bench has an
exception and the exception is where the Chief Justice 'otherwise
directs'.
[5] In the normal circumstances, such an order would not have
been made on the judicial side but as the writ petition has been
numbered and listed before this DB and as the question has been
brought to the notice of this court it has become necessary to make this
part of instant judicial order today more so as this DB presided by Chief
Justice has the benefit of hearing learned counsel on record for the writ
petitioner though such orders in the normal course are made by Chief
Justice on the administrative side.
[6] It is made clear that the captioned matter is being taken up
by DB only owing to the importance and by exercise of powers of Chief
Justice under Rule 3 (1) and proviso thereat without expressing any
opinion one way or the other as to whether it should be treated as a PIL
or not. This question is left open and will be decided as the matter
progresses.
[7] List under the same cause list caption 'MOTION' on
Monday week i.e., 09.03.2026 (we are saying Monday week owing to the
intervening Yaoshang holidays).
[8] List on 09.03.2026.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil
