[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
Mr. Tourangbam Brajakumar Singh vs Mr. Phurailatpam Vivekananda Sharma on 26 February, 2026
Digitally signed by 1
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2026.02.27
11:35:03 +05'30'
Sl. No.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(Cont.Cas(C))No. 13 of 2026
Ref: Cont.Cas(c)No.83 of 2024
Mr. Tourangbam Brajakumar Singh, aged about 59 years,
S/o (L) Tourangbam Brajamani Singh of Uripok
Tourangbam Leikai, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
Applicant
Vs.
Mr. Phurailatpam Vivekananda Sharma, aged about 55
years, S/o (L) Ph. Tomba Sharma of Keishamthong Top
Leirak, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur &
5 Ors.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
(ORDER)
(Order of the Court was made by Mr. M. Sundar, CJ)
26.02.2026
[1] Captioned miscellaneous case (MC) has been taken out by
a respondent in a pending contempt case namely Cont.Cas(C)No.83 of
2024. To be noted, MC applicant is respondent No.6 (R6) in the Contempt
case.
[2] Prayer in the captioned MC is as follows:
In the present facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed
that Your Lordship may be gracious enough to close the
above-referred contempt petition, in light of the Order dated
16.05.2024 issued by the Joint Secretary (DP) Government
of Manipur otherwise, pass an innocuous order that the
pendency of the above-referred contempt petition shall not
bar or prejudice any process for consideration of
appointment on promotion to the post of Director ( For. Envt.
& CC), Manipur on a regular basis so as to render absolute
justice.
[3] Short facts are that the afore-referred contempt case has
been filed by one Mr. Phurailatpam Vivekananda Sharma (1st respondent
in WA No.112 of 2023) complaining of non-compliance qua a common
order dated 09.02.2024 made in WA No.112 of 2023 to WA No. 115 of
2023 ('said order' for the sake of convenience and clarity).
[4] Considering the limited scope of captioned MC, suffice to
write that vide said order, a Division Bench made it clear that State is
permitted to undertake the exercise of consideration for appointment of in-
charge Director (Environment and Climate Change), Manipur afresh in
accordance with law and in accordance with two office memoranda one
dated 03.10.2020 and another dated 09.03.2021 within a period of eight
weeks without being bound by certain findings returned by Hon'ble Single
Bench out of which intra-court appeal in which said order was made arose.
[5] Complaining of non-compliance, afore-referred contempt
case has been filed by one Mr. Phurailatpam Vivekananda Sharma who
as already alluded to supra is 1st respondent in WA No.112 of 2023. There
are 8 (eight) respondents in all in the contempt case, all 8(eight)
respondents have entered appearance through counsel, as regards R6
affidavit in response has also been filed and the same is on board.
[6] It is in the aforesaid scenario that captioned MC has been
taken out, more so when the contempt case is scheduled to be listed on
17.03.2026.
[7] We heard Mr. Maibam Rendy Singh, learned counsel on
record for applicant.
[8] After some arguments, when it was pointed out that whether
16.05.2024 proceedings bearing reference No. COURT-1/68/2023-DP-
DP will amount to compliance qua said order is a matter which has to be
decided in the contempt case, learned counsel submitted that he is giving
up the first part of his prayer. This submission is recorded. Learned
counsel submitted that as regards the second part of his prayer, he wants
a clarification that pendency of contempt petition will not bar or prejudice
any process for consideration of appointment on promotion to the post of
Director (For. Envt. & CC), Manipur on a regular basis.
[9] In our considered view, such a prayer amounts to seeking a
clarification of said order i.e., order dated 09.02.2024 made in WA No.112
of 2023 to WA No.115 of 2023 though the MC prayer talks about
clarification qua pendency of contempt petition.
[10] Be that as it may, the scope of a contempt petition or in other
words, legal perimeter within which a contempt petition should
perambulate is such that clarification of such nature that too at the
instance of one of the respondents will be clearly impermissible. In this
view of the matter, we are not inclined to issue notice in the captioned MC.
However, we make it clear that all questions are left open for being
canvassed in the main contempt case.
[11] Captioned MC is rejected and we refrain from imposing
costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
John Kom
