SANASAM BINO DEVI v. STATE OF MANIPUR AND 4 ORS
Court: High Court of Manipur
Bench: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH,HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU KABUI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Manipur judgment dated 2024-05-27. SANASAM BINO DEVI v. STATE OF MANIPUR AND 4 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
LAIRENM Digitally signed by Item No. 38 AYUM LAIRENMAYUM INDRAJEET SINGH IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR INDRAJEE Date: 2024. 05. 27 16:58:23 +05'30' AT IMPHAL T SINGH W. A. No. 63 of 2019 Sanasam Bino Devi … Appellant - Versus - State of Manipur & 4 Ors. … Respondents B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU 27. 05. 2024 (AB. , J) Heard Mr. N. Umakanta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant; Mrs. Ch. Sundari, learned G. A. , appearing for the State respondent; and Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the Principal Accountant General. Mr. N. Umakanta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the appellant filed the present appeal assailing the order dated 25. 07. 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 34 of 2013 with a limited prayer for setting aside the impugned order and for remitting back the writ petition for hearing on merit.
It has further been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that at an earlier point of time, the representation submitted by the petitioner has already been rejected by the authorities and having been aggrieved, the appellant preferred the aforesaid writ petition for redressing her grievances, however, without hearing the matter on merit, the learned P a g e 1 | 3 Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by the impugned order by directing the respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner. In view of the above, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that since no effective relief can be granted by the impugned order, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order be set-aside and the connected writ petition be remanded back for deciding on merit. Mrs. Ch. Sundari, learned G. A.
appearing for the State respondent, submitted that in compliance with the direction given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, the Secretary, Home Department has already issued an order dated 23. 05. 2024 disposing of the representation submitted by the petitioner and declining to grant the relief requested by the petitioner. The learned G. A. further submitted that since the direction contained in the impugned order has already been complied with by the authorities by issuing an order dated 23. 05. 2024, no purpose will be served by setting aside the impugned order. Learned G. A. further submitted that since an order has been passed by the authorities in compliance with the impugned order, fresh cause of action arises and unless the petitioner assails the subsequent order, no effective relief can be granted. Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, endorsed the submission made by the learned G. A.
P a g e 2 | 3 In view of the submission made by learned G. A, Mr. N. Umakanta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, fairly states that the present appeal may be closed by giving liberty to the appellant to assail the subsequent order dated 23. 05. 2024 by filing a fresh writ petition and also for redressing the grievances to the petitioner. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the present writ appeal is hereby closed. Needless to mention here that the appellant/writ petitioner is at liberty to challenge the subsequent order by filing a writ petition and also for redressing any grievances. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ appeal is closed. JUDGE JUDGE Indrajeet P a g e 3 | 3
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.