Manipur High Court
Yumnam Dijendro Meitei vs State Of Manipur Through The Chief … on 16 March, 2026
Author: A. Bimol Singh
Bench: A. Bimol Singh
Digitally signed by
KHOIROM KHOIROM
BIPINCHAN BIPINCHANDRA REPORTABLE
SINGH
DRA SINGH Date: 2026.03.17
03:24:52 +05'30' Item No. 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
PIL No. 69 of 2021
Yumnam Dijendro Meitei, aged about 52 years, S/o Late
Y. Ibochouba Singh, resident of Mayang Imphal Thana
Maning Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal and District Imphal
West, Manipur - 795132.
... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. State of Manipur through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Manipur, Imphal, Old Secretariat -795001.
2. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary,
State Council for Education & Training, Government of
Manipur, Old Secretariat Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
3. The Director, State Council for Education &
Training, Government of Manipur, at Lamphelpat -
795004.
4. The Chief Engineer, Education Engineering Wing,
Government of Manipur, DM College Campus, Imphal
West, Manipur - 795001.
... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. BIMOL SINGH
For the petitioner : Mr. Sh. Athoi, Advocate along with Ms.
Jotibala, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. S. Nepolean, Senior Advocate
instructed by Mr. Y. Robert, Deputy
Government Advocate
Date of hearing : 16.03.2026
Date of judgment & order : 16.03.2026
Page 1|9
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(ORAL)
[M. Sundar, CJ]
[1] Captioned ‘Public Interest Litigation’ (‘PIL’ for the sake of
brevity) turns on a short point. The central theme of the captioned PIL is
shifting of ‘District Institute of Education and Training Centre’ (‘DIET Centre’
for the sake of convenience and brevity).
[2] In the hearing today, Mr. Sh. Athoi, learned counsel along
with Ms. Jotibala, learned counsel for PIL petitioner and Y. Robert, learned
Deputy Government Advocate (State counsel) led by Mr. S. Nepolean,
learned senior advocate for all four respondents are before this Court.
[3] Short facts shorn of particulars not imperative for appreciating
instant order are that DIET Centre is now located within DM College campus
in Imphal West; that sometime in 2016, the plan to upgrade DM College
and make it a Deemed University was in the anvil owing to which a policy
decision was taken that the entire land i.e. entire campus on which DM
College is now situate is required for the Deemed University; that owing to
such requirement, a further decision was taken to shift DIET Centre from
DM College campus; that Mayang Imphal, Imphal West District was
proposed and this Court is informed that foundation stone was laid in
Mayang Imphal, Imphal West District, but admittedly no construction has
been put up i.e. not even a brick has been laid; that under such
circumstances, a further policy decision was taken by the State to shift DIET
Centre to Salam Mamang Leikai, Imphal West to land measuring about 4.95
Page 2|9
acre under C.S. Dag Chitha No. 182 (New) in village No. 76 of Salam Keikhu;
that it is seen from case file that this land has been classified as Sarkari
Sanjabung ; that this location shall be referred to ‘Lamsang’ for the sake of
clarity; that after various proceedings an order dated 22.05.2021 bearing
reference No. 13/1/2007-SE/SCERT(Pt-11) was made by the Government
of Manipur more particularly SCERT (State Council of Education Research
and Training) and scanned reproduction of this order is as follows:
[4] Adverting to the afore-referred proceedings, Mr. Sh. Athoi,
learned counsel for PIL petitioner submitted that shifting of DIET Centre to
Page 3|9
Lamsang would mean that DIET Centre will now not be situate in ’23-Mayang Imphal Assembly Constituency’ (‘said Assembly Constituency’ for
the sake of convenience); that the captioned PIL has been filed before this
Court on 03.12.2021 but there has been no interim order; that the
construction of DIET Centre in Lamsang had commenced and it is at a very
advanced stage now.
[5] The lone grievance of the PIL petitioner is that shifting DIET
Centre from DM College campus, Imphal West to Lamsang will mean that
DIET Centre will now not be situate in the said Assembly Constituency.
[6] In response to the above submission, learned senior counsel
appearing for ‘all respondents’ (‘State’ collectively) submitted that Lamsang
is a more convenient location qua Mayang Imphal as it has a better
approach qua students and therefore, the same was chosen. Learned State
counsel drew our attention to affidavit-in-opposition of R-4 (The Chief
Engineer, Education Engineering Wing, Government of Manipur, DM College
Campus, Imphal West, Manipur – 795001) dated 03.02.2022 and drew our
attention to a positive averment/assertion thereat that distance from
Imphal to Lamsang (described as ‘Salam’ is about 9 Km) it is easily
motorable and it has easy access from Imphal, Jiribam National Highway
(NH-37) and Imphal – Kangchup Road. Learned State counsel pointed out
that this assertion in affidavit-in-opposition of R-4 has not been subjected
to disputation or contestation in reply affidavit.
[7] The main PIL was taken up with the consent of learned
counsel on both sides and heard out. As already alluded to supra, lone
Page 4|9
grievance of the PIL petitioner is shifting DIET Centre to Lamsang insteadof originally proposed Mayang Imphal would mean the DIET Centre will now
not be situate in said Assembly Constituency.
[8] A careful perusal of the afore-referred proceedings of State
dated 22.05.2021 makes it clear that the proposal to shift DIET Centre to
Mayang Imphal which is also in Imphal West District was one which was
revisited for shifting DIET Centre to more convenient location. It has been
categorically averred in 22.05.2021 proceedings that Mayang Imphal
location is not suitable for transportation of students and another proposal
to shift DIET Centre to Canchipur was also not be implemented owing to
non-availability of required land area there.
[9] Learned State counsel, drew our attention to certain
photographs which according to learned State counsel were taken in July
of 2025 and learned senior counsel for State submits on instructions that
construction is at a very advanced stage and almost complete i.e.
construction in Lamsang. Scanned reproduction of the photographs are as
follows:
Page 5|9
[10] This Court carefully considered the submissions made on bothsides and this Court comes to the conclusion that prayer in the captioned
PIL does not deserve to be acceded to (prayer to direct State to shift DIET
Centre to Mayang Imphal as originally proposed instead of Lamsang) and
the reasons are as follows:
(i) Lamsang has been chosen after taking into
account various determinants, including motorable
roads, students comforts etc. that too after
considering one more proposal qua Canchipur but on
the side of PIL petitioner there is no material to
demonstrate that Lamsang is not desirable for DIET
Centre to be situate and there is no material to show
any inconvenience that is likely to be caused. To be
noted, as already alluded to supra, the only
grievance of PIL petitioner is that the DIET Centre
will not be situate in said Assembly Constituency
now;
(ii) Learned counsel for PIL petitioner very fairly
submitted that the PIL petitioner is not opposing
shifting DIET Centre out of the DM College campus
as DM College is to be upgraded as a Deemed
University but his complaint is limited to shifting it to
Lamsang;
Page 6|9
(iii) Learned counsel for PIL petitioner also in the
course of hearing admitted that PIL petitioner owns
homestead land in Mayang Imphal, Imphal West
District which is about 2 Kms. from the site originally
proposed for construction of DIET Centre. This Court
deems it appropriate to not to delve more qua this
aspect and deems it appropriate to leave it at that;
(iv) As already alluded to supra, no public money
has been spent for putting up any construction in
Mayang Imphal, Imphal West District. There is no
disputation and contestation about this aspect. On
the contrary, construction is almost complete in
Lamsang and there is no material before this Court
to show that Lamsang is not suited for having DIET
Centre;
(v) Positive averment of R-4 in the affidavit-in-
opposition about the distance of Lamsang and
Mayang Imphal qua Imphal has not been subjected
to disputation with specificity in reply affidavit;
(vi) The question as to whether an institute like
DIET Centre or other public offices should be situate
is usually in the realm of decision of executive arm
in a welfare State and interference of Courts that too
Page 7|9
in a PIL petition is an exception when there are
compelling reasons to do so;
(vii) If any direction is given at this stage, a huge
construction put up in Lamsang with public money
which we are informed is almost complete will
definitely be put to peril;
(viii) Learned senior counsel for State pressed into
service a case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court made
in Aleemuddin vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors. reported in AIR 2019 SC 276 for the
proposition that where public buildings (Tehsil
building in Aleemuddin case) are to be constructed
is in the realm of administrative matters. In
Aleemuddin case, a PIL was filed seeking a
direction to State to construct Tehsil building in
village Karanpur Mafi District Amroha, this prayer
was answered in the affirmative by Hon’ble Division
Bench of Allahabad High Court but thereafter a
decision was taken to reconstruct the Tehsil in the
same place where it exists. Therefore, the direction
was sought to be recalled but that was negatived and
matter was carried to Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is in
this context, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aleemuddin
case held that cases in this nature (where Tehsil
Page 8|9
building should be constructed) is not a matter for
High Court to determine in the exercise of power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it is
essentially in the realm of administrative matter and
decision taken by the executive but in the factual
matrix of Aleemuddin case where, it came to light
that the PIL petitioner’s family owns land in Karanpur
village and a similar scenario emerges in the case at
hand about which there is allusion elsewhere supra
in this order.
[11] In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive
reasoning thus far, as the lone contention of PIL petitioner is that DIET
Centre should not be moved out of the said Assembly Constituency, we
have no hesitation in writing that PIL petition fails.
[12] Ergo, sequitur is, captioned PIL is dismissed. This Court
refrains itself from imposing 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 9|9