Namoijam Jeetu vs State Of Manipur Represented By The
2026 Latest Caselaw 1988 Mani

Manipur High Court

Namoijam Jeetu vs State Of Manipur Represented By The on 24 March, 2026

Author: A. Bimol Singh

Bench: A. Bimol Singh

              Digitally signed by
KHOIROM KHOIROM
BIPINCHAN BIPINCHANDRA
          SINGH                                                                             Item No. 3 - 4
DRA SINGH Date: 2026.03.25
          02:04:35 +05'30'                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                                       AT IMPHAL


                                                   W.P.(C) No. 217 of 2026

                           Namoijam Jeetu, aged about 56 years, S/o
                           (Late) Shamkishore Singh of Khagempalli
                           Panthak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
                           District, Manipur - 795001 & 12 Ors.
                                                                                         ... Petitioners
                                                             - Versus -

                           State of Manipur represented by the
                           Commissioner (RD & PR), Government of
                           Manipur, Old Secretariat Complex, Babupara,
                           Imphal - 795001 & 3 Ors.
                                                                                       ... Respondents

                                                             With
                                                  MC[W.P.(C)] NO. 231 of 2026


                                                      B E F O R E
                                        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
                                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. BIMOL SINGH


                                                          O R D E R

[M. Sundar, CJ]

24.03.2026

Mr. David Boon, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners

is before this Court (physical Court).

After some arguments, it came to light that there are

deficiencies and shortfalls in pleadings qua captioned 'writ petition' ('WP'

for the sake of brevity and convenience). To be noted, one of the

deficiencies is not arraying all necessary parties.

Page 1|3 Faced with the above situation, Mr. David Boon, learned

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

the captioned WP and captioned 'miscellaneous case' ('MC' for the sake of

brevity and convenience) thereat but made a further plea to preserve all

the rights and contentions of writ petitioners and similarly placed persons

to come this Court again (if so desired/if so advised) with a fresh petition

after making necessary course corrections.

Afore-referred request is acceded to.

A scanned reproduction of endorsement with regard to afore-

referred withdrawal plea made by learned counsel on record for writ

petitioners (endorsement made in the case file) is as follows:

Page 2|3 In the light of narrative thus far, captioned WP and captioned

MC thereat are disposed of as withdrawn / closed albeit with preservation

of rights and contentions of writ petitioners and/or similarly placed persons

as set out supra.

There shall be no order as to costs.

                            JUDGE                CHIEF JUSTICE

Bipin




                                                              Page 3|3