[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
State Of Manipur And Another vs Manipur Olympic Association And 2 ... on 23 January, 2026
Author: A.Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A.Guneshwar Sharma
SHAMURAILATPAM Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM
SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2026.01.23 18:00:39 +05'30'
Sl. No. 37
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(WA) No. 101 of 2025
State of Manipur and another
Applicants
Vs.
Manipur Olympic Association and 2 others
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
ORDER
(Order of the court was made by M. Sundar, CJ)
23.01.2026
[1] Captioned Misc. case (MC) has been filed with a prayer
seeking condonation of delay (CoD).
[2] This order has to be read in conjunction with and in
continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on
15.12.2025 which reads as follows :
'15.12.2025
[1] Captioned MC has been filed with a prayer
seeking condonation of delay (CoD) qua 47 (forty seven) days
delay in filing a writ appeal, assailing an order dated 08.07.2025
made in WP(C) No. 68 of 2024 ('impugned judgment and order'
for the sake of clarity).
[2] Ms. Nikita Mangsatabam, learned State Counsel,
adverting to paragraph 4, submits that the delay was neither
willful nor deliberate but owing to time consumed in various
procedures in the State machinery.
[3] Issue notice.
[4] Mr. Leo N., learned counsel, accepts notice for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. As regards, Respondent No. 3, notice
returnable by 12.01.2026. Dasti notice is also permitted. Learned
State Counsel is also permitted to serve on the learned counsel
who appeared for Respondent No. 3 before the Hon'ble Single
Bench.
[5] List on 12.01.2026.'
[3] Today, Ms. Nikita Mangsatabam, learned State Counsel for
appellants and Mr. Leo N, learned counsel for R1 and R2 are before this
Court. R3 has since been duly served and Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed,
learned counsel, has entered appearance on behalf of R3 and he is before
this Court.
[4] Learned State Counsel Ms. Nikita Mangsatabam, adverting
to the CoD petition, more particularly, paragraph 7 thereat which
contains a tabulation, submits that delay occurred owing to the time
consumed in State taking a decision regarding preferring appeal and
various tiers which the matter had to pass through.
[5] Though no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed, all the
respondents agreed to have the MC heard out.
[6] Mr. Leo opposed the plea of the State by pointing out that
this is what has been described by courts repeatedly as file pushing and
therefore, the same should not be countenanced.
[7] Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed very fairly submitted that he is
not opposing the CoD prayer.
[8] This Court carefully considered the matter.
[9] In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the
trajectory the matter has taken thus far and more particularly, the
manner in which the litigants are circumstanced, this Court is of the
considered view that this is a fit case to accede to the CoD prayer though
the State could have been a little more diligent.
[10] Ergo, the sequitur is, delay is condoned and captioned MC
is ordered as prayed for.
[11] There shall be no order as to costs.
[12] Registry to process the appeal and assign a number if the
main appeal is otherwise in order.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil
