Sarangthem Vivek vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 150 Mani

Manipur High Court

Sarangthem Vivek vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The ... on 2 February, 2026

Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh

Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh

                                                    1
            Digitally signed by
JOHN        JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM   Date: 2026.02.03
            09:56:08 +05'30'
                                                                          Sl. No. 1 & 2(Suppl.)

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                            AT IMPHAL

                                          WP(C)No.78 of 2026
                                                 With
                                         MC(WP(C))No.85 of 2026

     Sarangthem Vivek, age about 39 years old, S/o S. Prafullo Singh, a resident
     of Singjamei Chingamakha Liwa Lambi Chanampukhrimapal, PO & PS
     Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur & 34 Ors.
                                                                                  Petitioners
                                            Vs.
     The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of
     Manipur, Secretariat Block, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-
     795001 & Anr.
                                                                               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)

02.02.2026.

[1] When the matter was taken up, Ms. Lekhakumari, learned counsel

on record for writ petitioners sought leave of this Court to withdraw the captioned

Writ Petition (WP) but made a plea to preserve all the rights and contentions of 34

writ petitioners and/or any other similarly placed persons to challenge the Rule

amendment by way of an appropriate writ.

[2] To be noted, the need to withdraw and file afresh has arisen inter

alia owing to the prayer and the framework of the writ petition and therefore this

has no bearing on the merits of the matter.

[3] Afore-referred request acceded to.

[4] The endorsement made by learned counsel on record for writ

petitioners in the case file is as follows:

[5] Consequently, captioned WP and MC thereat are disposed of as

withdrawn/closed albeit with preservation of rights and contentions of writ

petitioners and/or any other similarly placed person to come to this Court with a

similar prayer by way of an appropriate Writ Petition. We refrain from imposing

costs.

                       JUDGE                          CHIEF JUSTICE

John Kom

FR/NFR