State Of Manipur vs Rk Purnachandra Singh Aged About 65 ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1643 Mani

Manipur High Court

State Of Manipur vs Rk Purnachandra Singh Aged About 65 ... on 13 March, 2026

KABORAMB Digitally signed
         by
AM       KABORAMBAM
SANDEEP SANDEEP     SINGH
         Date: 2026.03.16
SINGH    11:06:21 +05'30'

                                                                            Sl. No. 46
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                       AT IMPHAL
                                 MC (W.A.) No. 105 of 2025

                   1. State of Manipur, represented by the Addl. Chief
                      Secretary (Works), Government of Manipur, Old
                      Secretariat Complex, Babupara, Imphal - 795001.

                   2. The    Chief   Engineer,   Public   Works   Department,
                      Government of Manipur, Khuyathong, Imphal West
                      District, Manipur - 795001.

                                                                         Applicants
                                           Vs.

                  1. RK Purnachandra Singh aged about 65 years, S/o RK
                      Modhusana Singh of Patsoi Part III, Imphal West
                      District, Manipur.

                  2. The Accountant General (A & E), Babupara, Imphal -
                      795001, Manipur.

                                                                       Respondents

For applicants : Mr. W. Niranjit, Deputy Government Advocate For respondents : Ms. L. Sillori, Advocate for respondent

Mr. S. Jasobanta, Advocate for

Date of order : 13.03.2026

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA (ORDER)

M. Sundar, CJ

[1] Captioned 'Miscellaneous Case' ('MC' for the sake of brevity) has

been filed with a Condonation of Delay (CoD) prayer qua 141 days delay in

filing an intra court State appeal.

[2] Mr. W. Niranjit, learned State counsel for MC applicants, Ms. L.

Sillori, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. Jasobanta, learned

counsel for respondent No. 2 are before this Court.

[3] Captioned CoD MC was taken up and heard out with the consent

of all the afore-referred learned counsel.

[4] Mr. W. Niranjit, learned State counsel for MC applicants,

adverting to paragraph 3 of the MC application, more particularly, the

tabulation thereat, submitted that filing of the intra court appeal had to go

through several tiers in the Government and certain difficulties in certain tiers

has caused the delay. Learned State counsel went on to submit that the delay

is neither willful nor wanton but only owing to bonafide reasons, the details

of which have been set out in the form of adumbration/tabulation vide

paragraph 3 in the MC application. This Court perused the same.

[5] As regards respondents, both learned counsel for respondents,

submit that State should have been more diligent and the delays are clearly

avoidable.

[6] This Court carefully considered the competing submissions.

Though some aspects of the delay are avoidable, the entire matter when

viewed in its totality, leaves us with the opinion that the delay is neither willful

nor wanton. Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, the nature of the matter, the issues involved and more particularly, the

manner in which the parties have been circumstanced, this Court is of the

considered view that this is a fit case for condoning the delay. CoD prayer is

acceded to, the delay is condoned.

[7] Registry to process the appeal, if objections are removed and

assign a number and list the matter, if otherwise in order.

[8] Captioned CoD MC is allowed/ordered as prayed for. There shall

be no order as to costs.

                      JUDGE                                CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep