[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
Aribam Dhananjoy Sharma vs State Of Manipur And 3 Others on 9 March, 2026
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM
SUSHIL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.03.09 19:29:30 +05'30'
Sl. No. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 173 of 2026
Aribam Dhananjoy Sharma
......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)
09.03.2026.
[1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier
proceedings made in the previous listings on 26.02.2026 which reads as
follows :
'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.'
[2] Today, Mr. Meihoubam Rakesh Singh, learned counsel on
record for the writ petitioner is before this Court.
[3] Learned counsel submits that appointment of respondent
No. 4 as State Information Commissioner of Manipur Information
Commission is hit by Section 15(3) of 'the Right to Information Act, 2005
(22 of 2005)' ['RTI Act' for the sake of brevity] which says that State
Information Commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor on the
recommendation of a committee consisting of Hon'ble Chief Minister
(who shall be Chairman of the Committee), Hon'ble Leader of the
Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and a Hon'ble Cabinet Minister
to be nominated by Chief Minister.
[4] Adverting to a reply dated 02.01.2026 in response to writ
petitioner's query/request for information under RTI Act, learned counsel
submits that the response of Public Information Officer under the RTI Act
says that due to President's Rule, Committee under Section 15(3) of RTI
Act was not constituted and that the process was handled via Governor
in Council. The relevant query and the answer as found in the tabulation
is as follows :
Para Query Reply
The Selection Committee
3 Please provide : under Section 15(3) of the
RTI Act, 2005, consists of
(a) the names and designations of the Chief Minister
all members of the Selection (Chairperson), the Leader
Committee; of Opposition in the
Legislative Assembly, and a
(b) the dates on which the
Cabinet Minister nominated
Committee met; and
by the Chief Minister.
(c) copies of any dissent notes or However, due to President's
objections recorded by any Rule, it was not constituted;
member. the process was handled via
Governor in Council.
[5] On 14.11.2025, when respondent No. 4 was appointed as
State Information Commissioner, President's Rule was in vogue in
Manipur. In this view of the matter, this Court drew the attention of
learned counsel to 'assumption of functions' qua Articles 356 and 357 of
the Constitution of India.
[6] Faced to the above situation, learned counsel sought time
to produce a copy of the afore-referred Presidential proclamation and
any other document/s in this regard which may be of relevance to the
legal drill at hand.
[7] Request of learned counsel for writ petitioner acceded to.
[8] List under the caption 'ADJOUNRED ADMISSION' on
30.03.2026.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil
