M. Edith vs State Of Manipur & Anr on 22 April, 2025

Manipur High Court

M. Edith vs State Of Manipur & Anr on 22 April, 2025

Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh

Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh

              Digitally signed by                                                         IN. 44
SHOUGRAKPAM   SHOUGRAKPAM DEVANANDA
DEVANANDA     SINGH
              Date: 2025.04.22 15:50:50
SINGH         +05'30'



                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                             AT IMPHAL
        WP(C) No. 225 of 2019
        M. Edith                                                       ... Petitioner
              Vs.
        State of Manipur & anr.                                        ... Respondents

                                B E F O R E
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

                                            O R D E R

22-04-2025
Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the Office of the
Accountant General raised a preliminary objection with regard to the
maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the earlier
writ petition filed by the present petitioner on the same subject-matter
and seeking the same relief was closed earlier by this court without
granting relief. The learned counsel further submitted that the present
writ petition which is filed by the present petitioner on the same
subject-matter and seeking the same relief as in the earlier writ petition
is not maintainable. In support of such contention, the learned counsel
relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of “State of UP & anr. Vs. Labh Chand”, reported in (1993) 2 SCC
495 wherein it has been held as under:-

“20. When a Judge of Single-Judge Bench of a High Court is required to
entertain a second writ petition of a person on a matter, he cannot, as a
matter of course, entertain such petition, if an earlier writ petition of the
same person on the same matter had been dismissed already by another
Single-Judge Bench or a Division Bench of the same High Court, even
if such dismissal was on the ground of laches or on the ground of
non-availing of alternate remedy. Second writ petition cannot be so
entertained not because the learned Single Judge has no jurisdiction to
entertain the same, but because entertaining of such a second writ
petition would render the order of the same court dismissing the earlier
writ petition redundant and nugatory, although not reviewed by it in
exercise of the recognized power. Besides, if a learned Single Judge
could entertain a second writ petition of a person respecting a matter on

WP(C) No. 225 of 2019 Contd…/-

-2-

which his first writ petition was dismissed in limine by another learned
Single Judge or a Division Bench of the same court, it would encourage
an unsuccessful writ petitioner to go on filing writ petition after
writ petition in the same matter in the same High Court, and have it
brought up for consideration before one Judge after another. Such a
thing, if is allowed to happen, it could result in giving full scope and
encouragement to an unscrupulous litigant to abuse the process of the
High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution in that any order of any Bench of such court refusing to
entertain a writ petition could be ignored by him with impunity and relief
sought in the same matter by filing a fresh writ petition. This would only
lead to introduction of disorder, confusion and chaos relating to
exercise of writ jurisdiction by Judges of the High Court for there could
be no finality for an order of the court refusing to entertain a writ petition.
It is why, the rule of judicial practice and procedure that a second writ
petition shall not be entertained by the High Court on the subject-matter
respecting which the first writ petition of the same person was
dismissed by the same court even if the order of such dismissal was in
limine, be it on the ground of laches or on the ground of non-exhaustion
of alternate remedy, has come to be accepted and followed as salutary
rule in exercise of writ jurisdiction of courts.”

Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the earlier order dated 27-07-2018 passed by
this court in WP(C) No. 186 of 2018 filed by the present writ petitioner is
no longer sustainable in view of the decision rendered by this court and
upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The learned senior counsel further
submitted that the said order has been passed by this court without
considering the merit of the case and unless the grievance of the
petitioner is adjudicated by this court, the petitioner will be rendered
prejudice even though he is entitled to the relief sought for in the present
writ petition. However, the learned senior counsel submitted that in view
of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which has been
quoted hereinabove, the petitioner may be granted leave to withdraw the
present writ petition with liberty to file an appeal against the said order
dated 27-07-2018 passed by this court in WP(C) No. 186 of 2018 before
the appropriate Division Bench. The learned senior counsel further
submitted that the period spent on pursuing the present writ petition i.e.,
from the date of filing the present writ petition till today be set off while
computing the delay in filing the writ appeal.

WP(C) No. 225 of 2019 Contd…/-

-3-

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed
as being withdrawn with liberty as sought for by the petitioner.

The petitioner is also given liberty to raise before the Appellate
Court the point of excluding the period spent in pursuing the present writ
petition at the time of computing the delay in filing the appeal by the
present petitioner against the said order dated 27-07-2018 passed in
WP(C) No. 186 of 2018.

                                                           JUDGE
Devananda




 WP(C) No. 225 of 2019                                              Contd.../-