SHRI SEKHOGIN SITHLOU AND 6 ORS v. STATE OF MANIPUR AND 128 ORS
Court: High Court of Manipur
Bench: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Manipur judgment dated 2020-11-03. SHRI SEKHOGIN SITHLOU AND 6 ORS v. STATE OF MANIPUR AND 128 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
Item – 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC[W. P. (C)] No. 181 of 2020 (Through video conference) Sekhogin Sithlou & 6 Ors. ... Petitioner/s -Versus - State of Manipur & 128 Ors. ... Respondent/s B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN 03. 11. 2020 When the matter is taken up today, I heard Mr. M. Devananda, Ld. counsel for the petitioners/applicants and Mr. M. Rarry, Ld. Addl. AG for the Government respondent. [2] This application in MC[W. P. (C)] No. 181 of 2020 has been filed to implead the private respondents as Respondent Nos. 130 to 177 in the main writ petition in W. P. (C) No. 921 of 2016 on the ground that at the time of filing the writ petition by over sight, they were not impleaded as party respondents in the writ petition. [3] Now, they came to know that these 48 persons are also necessary parties to be impleaded as party respondents in the writ proceedings. Therefore, they filed this Misc. Application in MC[W. P. (C)] No.
181 of 2020 for impleading them as party respondents in the writ proceedings. On the other hand, Mr. Kh. Tomba on behalf of Mr. Tarunkumar, Ld. counsel for the respondents has made no objection whereas Mr. M. Rarry, Ld. Addl. AG for the Government respondent is objecting that there is no reason given for impleading these 48 persons as party respondents in the writ petition. He also further represented that though other private respondents are already impleaded as party respondents in the writ proceedings and the writ petition has been filed in the year 2016, but this Misc. Application in MC[W. P. (C)] No. 181 of 2020 has been filed in the year 2020 only for the reason to drag the proceedings. Therefore, he is strongly objecting for impleading these 48 persons as party respondents in the writ proceedings.
[4] Considering the arguments of all the counsels, it is absolutely necessary for impleading these 48 persons as party respondents in the writ proceedings on the only ground that similar persons/private respondents have already been impleaded as party respondents in the writ proceedings. [5] Therefore, I am inclined to allow this Misc. Application in MC[W. P. (C)] No. 181 of 2020. [6] Accordingly, this MC[W. P. (C)] No. 181 of 2020 is allowed. [7] Registry is directed to carry out the amendment and the writ petitioner is directed to file recast writ petition along with the affidavit and serve the copy of the same to all the Ld. counsels for the respondents well in advance to enable them to file counter affidavit afresh. [8] The writ petitioner is also directed to take notice to the newly impleaded respondents returnable by 16. 12. 2020. The writ petitioner is permitted to take private notice to all the newly impleaded respondents returnable by 16. 12. 2020.
[9] On receipt of the recast writ petition along with the affidavit, Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Ld. counsel for the respondents and Mr. M. Rarry, Ld. Addl. AG for the Government respondent are directed to file their objections in the meantime. JUDGE Larson Yumkh Digitally signed by Yumkham Rother am Date: 2020. 11. 04 12:39:21 +05'30' Rother
Source: High Court of Manipur. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.