[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
The Commissioner / Secretary Water ... vs Keisham Meghachandra Singh on 20 March, 2026
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Digitally signed by
KHOIROM KHOIROM
BIPINCHAN BIPINCHANDRA
SINGH
DRA SINGH Date: 2026.03.20 Item No. 7
18:58:22 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(PIL) No. 8 of 2026
1. The Commissioner / Secretary Water Resource,
Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat Building, Babupara,
PO & PS Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
2. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief
Secretary, Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat Building,
Babupara, PO & PS Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department,
Government of Manipur, PWD Complex, Khuyathong, PO &
PS Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
... Applicants
- Versus -
1. Keisham Meghachandra Singh, MLA (Member of
Legislative Assembly) of Wangkhem Assembly Constituency in
Manipur Legislative Assembly, aged about 52 years old S/o
(Late) Keisham Meghachandra Singh, Yairipok Bishnunaha,
Yairipok, P.O. Yairipok, P.S. Yairipok, Thoubal District, Manipur
- 795149.
... Respondent
2. The Union of Ministry of Jal Shakti, represented by the
Secretary, Department of Water Resources, River
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Government of India,
CR Section, Room No. 224, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Secretary to the Hon'ble Governor of Manipur, Raj
Bhavan, Manipur, Imphal P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur -
795001.
... Proforma Respondents
Page 1|7
B E F O R E
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the applicant : Mr. Lenin Hijam, Advocate General, Manipur
instructed by Ms. Thanyomi Keishing,
Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. N. Bupenda, Advocate for R - 1
Date of hearing : 20.03.2026
Date of judgment & order: 20.03.2026
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(ORAL)
[M. Sundar, CJ]
[1] Public Interest Litigation (PIL) being PIL No. 29 of 2025 was
disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2025 which reads as
follows:
Order dated 17.11.2025 -
'[1] Captioned 'Public Interest Litigation'('PIL' for the sake of
brevity) has been filed by a sitting member of the Manipur
Legislative Assembly(MLA, for the sake of brevity) representing
Wangkhem Constituency Assembly.
[2] Mr. N. Bupenda Meitei, learned counsel for PIL petitioner
submits that subject matter of captioned PIL is 'Mapithel Dam which
is also known as Thoubal Multipurpose Project' situate in Thoubal
district ('said Dam' and the opening of the said Dam on 14.09.2025
night/early hours of 15.09.2025.
[3] Mr. N. Bupenda, Meitei, learned counsel for PIL petitioner,
adverting to the case file and the annexures thereat submits that
the afore-referred opening of the said Dam was without prior
information to the local populace/citizenry living downstream.
Learned counsel submits that there is no information through media
such as television, radio, newspaper or other social media prior to
opening of the said Dam on the aforesaid date and that resulted in
inundation and loss of several acres of agricultural paddy fields, fish
Page 2|7
farms and human lives besides inundation of thousands of houses
and loss of property.
[4] Learned counsel for PIL petitioner, Mr. N. Bupenda Meitei
contends that the aforesaid scenario was avoidable and the
loss/damage could have been minimized or alleviated if there was
prior intimation. Learned counsel also submits that there are
differing statements regarding the quantum of rainfall qua official
statements.
[5] Issue notice to respondent Nos. 1, 3,4 & 5.
[6] Ms. Thanyonmi Keishing, learned counsel accepts notice for
respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 and Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate
General(AG) appears on her behalf. Mr. Themchuiyo Kashung,
learned counsel representing Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, learned
counsel accepts notice for respondent No.5.
[7] Learned AG, Mr. Lenin Hijam submits that the allegation qua
officials is not correct but in any event without taking an adversarial
position considering that this is a human problem a Committee
headed by Chief Secretary, Manipur along with a member from R5
shall be constituted, the Committee would go into to the matter and
submit a report.
[8] In the light of what has unfurled thus far, with the consent
of learned counsel for writ petitioner, Mr. N. Bupenda Meitei,
learned AG for respondent Nos.1,3 & 4 and Mr. Themchuiyo
Kashung, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 i.e., with the
consent of all the counsel, the main appeal was taken up in the
admission board itself. To be noted, Respondent Nos. 1,3 4 & 5
consented to this course without insisting on filing counter affidavit
as stated position of the State that this may not be viewed as
adversarial litigation.
[9] To be noted, as would be evident from the narrative thus
far, this court has restrained itself from issuing notice to respondent
No.2 in the instant matter. However, the main PIL petition was
taken up with consent of both sides (without notice to R2 and
leaving this question open).
[10] This court having taken up the main appeal in the aforesaid
manner, carefully considered the case file, annexures and
submissions of the learned counsel before this court. It comes to
the light that PIL petitioner has sent two representations, one dated
04.10.2025 and another dated 16.10.2025 which have been placed
before this Court as annexures A/28 and A/29 respectively. These
representations have been duly received by the addressees and
there is no disputation that reply has not been sent to the PIL
Petitioner. To be noted, this has necessitated the PIL.
Page 3|7
[11] Be that as it may, it could be appropriate to write that a
Committee as proposed by learned AG can be constituted, the
Committee can go into the issue including the afore-referred
representations of PIL petitioner, draw up a report and R1 shall
send a suitable response to the PIL petitioner i.e., response to
2(two) representations. Learned AG submits that this exercise shall
be completed within 12(twelve) weeks from today i.e., on or before
02.03.2026. This also means that the response to PIL petitioner's
afore-referred representations will be furnished to the PIL petitioner
(under due acknowledgement) on or before 02.02.2026.
[12] In the light of the fair stand taken by both sides, the
captioned PIL is given a closure but making it clear that all the rights
and contentions of the PIL petitioner, any other person concerned
for this matter, R1, 3,4 and 5 stand preserved post response of R1
in afore-referred manner. We deem it appropriate to add that we
have not expressed any view or opinion on the merits of the matter
in this order and we leave open all questions. We also make it clear
that if the PIL petitioner or any other person concerned for this
matter, if not satisfied with the response of the State can assail the
same in a manner known to law if such scenario unfurls. The same
will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law
untrammeled by instant order.
[13] Caption PIL disposed of in the aforesaid manner albeit with
afore-mentioned observations and preservation of rights and
contentions in the aforesaid manner.
[14] There shall be no order as to costs.'
As a minor inadvertent typographical error had crept in, qua
paragraph No. 11 of aforementioned 17.11.2025 order, MC(PIL) No. 38 of
2025 was taken out and the same came to be disposed of by an order dated
25.11.2025 which reads as follows:
Order dated 25.11.2025 -
'[1] Captioned main PIL i.e. PIL No.29 of 2025 was disposed of
by this Court in and by an 'order dated 17.11.2025'('said order' for
the sake of convenience).
[2] In the said order, a time frame for a Committee (to be
constituted) to draw up a report and for R1 to send a suitable
response to PIL petitioner was fixed. The time frame is 12(twelve)
weeks i.e. on or before 02.03.2026. While in the first part of
paragraph 11 of said order, the date has been correctly typed
as '02.03.2026' in the last sentence of the same paragraph 11 of
Page 4|7
said order, the date has been erroneously typed as '02.02.2026'.
This is an inadvertent typographical error(to be noted, this has
necessitated the captioned MC).
[3] Today, H. Debendra, learned Deputy Advocate General
instructed by Ms. Thanyomi Keishing, learned counsel for
petitioners(MC); Mr. Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, learned counsel for
respondent No. 2 and Mr. N. Bupenda, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 are before us in the physical Court. Both sides very
fairly agreed that the date in the last sentence (also last line) of
paragraph 11 of said order should read as '02.03.2026', this
correction is now effected vide instant order, by consent of both
sides.
[4] This order, on being uploaded will serve as an addenda to
said order and it will also serve as errata/corrigendum qua said
order dated 17.11.2025.
[5] Captioned MC disposed of in the aforesaid manner vide
instant consent order. There shall be no order as to costs.'
[2] The afore-referred two orders have to be read together. This
means that response to PIL petitioner's representations should be furnished
to PIL petitioner (under due acknowledgement) on or before 02.03.2026.
Expressing some difficulties regarding meeting this timeline, captioned MC
has been taken out by State seeking further time (8 weeks) to complete the
exercise.
[3] In the hearing today, learned Advocate General of Manipur
and senior advocate, Mr. Lenin Hijam instructed by Ms. Thanyomi Keishing,
learned State counsel is before this Court. Learned Advocate General,
adverting to the MC(PIL) No. 8 of 2026 more particularly paragraph Nos. 4
& 8 thereat submits that the Union Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of
India had to nominate a member in the committee who is to go into the PIL
petitioner's representations, that has since been done after which a meeting
Page 5|7
was held on 27.02.2026, all this consumed time and that has necessitated
the captioned MC (PIL) No. 8 of 2026.
[4] Issue notice to 'respondent No. 1' alone ('R-1' for the sake of
brevity and convenience) (to be noted, R - 1 is PIL petitioner).
[5] Mr. N. Bupenda, learned counsel for PIL petitioner is before
this Court and learned counsel accepts notice for R-1. Learned counsel
points out that constitution of committee was contemplated even as of
17.11.2025.
[6] Nonetheless as it is not an adversarial litigation in every sense
of the expression and the PIL petitioner is more in the nature of an
informant, we deem it appropriate to grant further time to State (as sought
for before this Court) and it is also appropriate to write that in support of
captioned MC(PIL No. 8 of 2026), State has placed before us proceedings
of a meeting chaired by Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur held on
27.02.2026 and vide sub-paragraph No. iv of paragraph No. 4 of this
proceedings, it has been mentioned that a report is to be submitted to the
High Court of Manipur. For the sake of specificity, we clarify that in the
orders disposing of the PIL, this Court has not requisitioned any report. It
has only directed State to furnish its response (response to PIL petitioner's
representations) to PIL petitioner (under due acknowledgement) on or
before 02.03.2026. This is abundantly clear from paragraph No. 11 of our
order dated 17.11.2025 which now is to be read together with order dated
25.11.2025.
Page 6|7
[7] The timeline of 02.03.2026 is extended up to 11.05.2026. This
means that the orders in PIL (PIL No. 29 of 2025) dated 17.11.2025 and
25.11.2025 [MC(PIL) No. 38 of 2025] will remain the same in all other
aspects except that the date in paragraph No. 11 of order dated 17.11.2025
(as corrected vide order dated 25.11.2025) will now read as 11.05.2026
instead of 02.03.2026.
[8] Captioned MC(PIL) No. 8 of 2026 disposed of in the aforesaid
manner. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Bipin
P.S. I : Upload forthwith.
P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded
in High Court website inter alia as the same is QR
coded.
Page 7|7
