Manipur High Court
Shri. Ayekpam Keshorjit Singh Aged … vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary on 28 July, 2026
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
2026:MNHC:140-DB
Sl. No.1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
PIL No.11 of 2026.
Shri. Ayekpam Keshorjit Singh aged about 48 years S/o Late
A. Kunjo Singh, Resident of Haobam Marak Irom Leikai, P.O.
Imphal & PS Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
.....Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India and
its Office address at Krishi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad
Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. The State of Manipur through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Manipur and its Office at New Secretariat
Building, Mantripukhri, Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
3. The Commissioner/Secretary(Agriculture), Government of
Manipur and its Office at New Secretariat Building,
Mantripukhri, B.P.O.-High Court of Manipur & PS-
Heingang, District-Imphal East, Manipur.
4. The Director General of Police, Manipur and its Office at
New Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, Imphal East,
Manipur-795002
5. The Director, Directorate of Agriculture, Government of
Manipur and its Office address at Sanjenthong, Imphal,
Manipur-795001.
` ....Respondents
6. Shri. Ningthoujam Gojendro, the then Director, Directorate
of Agriculture, Government of Manipur, aged about 51
years S/o Late Ningthoujam Gambhir Singh, a resident of
Page 1 of 14
2026:MNHC:140-DB
Sapam Leirak Nongmaithem Mamang Leikai, PO-Imphal,
PS- Lamphel, District-Imphal West, Manipur.
7. Shri Akoijam Bowjit, the then Nodal Officer PMKSY,
Directorate of Agriculture, Government of Manipur, aged
about 64 years, S/o Late Akoijam Mangi, a resident of
Mahabali Mamang Meitei Leikai, PO-Imphal, PS-
Porompat, District-Imphal East, Manipur.
8. Shri Chingakham Maniratan Singh, aged about 58 years,
S/o Chingakham Paka Singh, a resident of Kwakeithel
Nganapi Thong Mapal, PO & PS- Imphal, District-Imphal
West, Manipur and now serving as S.O.(In-Charge),
Directorate of Agriculture, Government of Manipur and
9. Smt. Rajkumari Gitarani Devi, aged about 41 years W/O
Khangembam Playtoni Meetei. A resident of Khurai Soibam
Leikai, Near Citizen Club, PO & PS-Porompat District-
Imphal East, Manipur and now serving as Computer
Operator, PMKSY, Directorate of Agriculture, Government
of Manipur.
….Private Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
JUDGEMENT & ORDER
(Oral)
28.07.2026
[1] The following abbreviations/short forms have been used in this
order (for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity):
Sl. Abbreviation/Short Full Form/Expansion
No. Form/other short
references
1. PiL Public Interest Litigation
2 RTI Right to InformationPage 2 of 14
2026:MNHC:140-DB
3. RTI Act The Right to Information Act,
2005 (22 of 2005)
4. PMKSY Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee
Yojana
5. R1, R2,R3, etc. It denotes respondent No.1,
respondent No.2, respondent
No.3 and similar abbreviations
have been used for other
respondents also.
6. said representation Representation dated 29.12.2025
sent by PiL petitioner to R4 and
received by the office of R4 on
30.12.2025.
[2] Captioned matter is listed under the cause list caption ‘MOTION
PIL’.
[3] Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel on record for PiL petitioner is
before this Court (physical Court).
[4] In the hearing today, it comes to light from the case file and
submissions of the learned counsel that the PiL petitioner describes himself
as a social activist and he has filed captioned PiL in this Court on 23.07.2026
with a prayer for direction to State to constitute/appoint an competent agency
to conduct investigation into allegations of misuse of funds to the tune of
180.27 crores qua PMKSY.
[5] At the outset, learned counsel for PiL petitioner submits that
there is no reply to said representation. To be noted, a scanned reproduction
of said representation dated 29.12.2025 as placed before this Court (P/5 of
the paper book) is as follows:
Page 3 of 14
2026:MNHC:140-DB
Page 4 of 14
2026:MNHC:140-DBPage 5 of 14
2026:MNHC:140-DBPage 6 of 14
2026:MNHC:140-DBPage 7 of 14
2026:MNHC:140-DBPage 8 of 14
2026:MNHC:140-DB[6] Issue notice to official respondents.
[7] Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, learned CGSC (Central Government
Standing Counsel) accepts notice for R1. Ms. Jyotsana Devi, learned State
counsel accepts notice for R2 to R5 and Mr. M. Devananda, learned senior
advocate and learned Additional Advocate General (.Addl.AG) for State of
Manipur appears on her behalf.
Page 9 of 14
2026:MNHC:140-DB
[8] Learned State counsel for R1 submits that as regards captioned
PiL, R1 is more in the nature of formal party as R1 is concerned with putting
in place PMKSY and implementation is in the domain of State Government.
[9] As regards R2 to R5, learned Addl. AG on instructions, adverting
to the paper book of the PiL petitioner, submits that the PiL petitioner has
taken the RTI route by making a RTI application dated 27.10.2025 under RTI
Act and obtained replies to 3(three) queries vide reply dated 02.04.2026. To
be noted, scanned reproduction of RTI reply as placed before this Court by
PiL petitioner is as follows:
Page 10 of 14
2026:MNHC:140-DB
[10] Learned Addl. AG, adverting to afore-referred RTI reply submits
that the RTI reply has been obtained by PiL petitioner post said
representation. To be noted, as already alluded to supra, said representation
dated 29.12.2025 addressed to R4 and has been received by the office of R4
on 30.12.2025 but the RTI reply is dated 02.04.2026 (though PiL petitioner is
RTI querist and the RTI application is dated 27.10.2025). Learned Addl. AG
submitted, on instructions, that if the PiL petitioner makes a further
representation qua said representation, the further representation which will
be predicated on the RTI reply will be treated as ‘addenda’ to said
representation, the same (said presentation and further representation) will be
Page 11 of 14
2026:MNHC:140-DBconsidered on its own merits in accordance with law and dispose of said
representation, necessary legal action (if deemed necessary by R4)
permissible in law will be initiated.
[11] In aforesaid scenario, learned counsel for PiL petitioner de-
scoped the prayer in captioned PiL, limited it and submitted that it will suffice
if said representation/further representation are disposed of on its own merits
in accordance with law.
[12] Both sides agreed to the aforesaid course and agreed to have a
consent order in this regard subject only to a time frame/cap for R4 to dispose
of said representation. Therefore, captioned PIL (main matter) was taken up
in the admission Board itself with the consent of learned counsel on record for
PiL petitioner and learned State counsel. In this regard, this Court is acutely
conscious that R6 to R9 are private respondents and captioned PiL is being
disposed of in the admission Board itself, which means R6 to R9 are not put
on notice. Therefore, it is made clear that all the rights and contentions of R6
to R9 stand preserved. This order will not impact the rights and contentions of
R6 to R9 in any manner. Likewise, it is made clear that while said
representation and further representation are taken up by R4, adequate and
ample opportunity shall be given to private respondents (R6 to R9) and the
stand point of R6 to R9 (their response to said representation and further
representation) shall be duly considered on its own merits and in accordance
with law untrammeled by instant order. It is in this context that this Court
deems it appropriate to write that this order does not express any view or
opinion on the merits of the matter much less on the allegations qua
Page 12 of 14
2026:MNHC:140-DBillegalities/irregularities in PMKSY. As all the rights and contentions of R6 to
R9 remain protected/preserved and also untrammeled by instant order and as
private respondents R6 to R9 will get an opportunity to respond to said
representation and further representation when R4 examines the said
representation and further representation, there is no impediment in disposing
of the captioned PIL by dispensing with notice to private respondents and
making instant innocuous consent order. As regards opportunity to private
respondents (R6 to R9), we make it clear that it need not necessarily be a
personal hearing qua R4, we deem it appropriate to write that R4 shall
requisition comments/response of R6 to R9 qua said representation as well
as further representation, take into account the response of R6 to R9 and then
make any orders, obviously on the merits of the said representation/further
representation and response of R6 to R9 and in accordance with law.
[13] In the light of the discussions thus far, the following order is
made;
(a) PiL petitioner shall now send a further representation to R4
inter-alia capturing essentials of afore-referred RTI reply dated
02.04.2026 and this shall be done by PiL petitioner within a
fortnight from today i.e., on or before 11.08.2026;
(b) after receipt of further representation, adverted to supra, R4
shall take up said representation and further representation
together, requisition comments/views/viewpoints/response of R6
to R9, consider said representation/further representation as well
as the response/views of R6 to R9 and make an order on its own
Page 13 of 14
2026:MNHC:140-DB
merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as the official
business of R4 would permit but in any event within 8(eight)
weeks from 11.08.2026 i.e., on or before 06.10.2026;
(c) the disposal of said representation/further representation by
R4 in the aforesaid manner shall be communicated to PiL
petitioner as well as each of the private respondents (R6 to R9)
under due acknowledgement within 7(seven) working days from
the date of disposal;
(d) if PiL petitioner or private respondents R6 to R9 and/or any
other individual concerned with the matter is not satisfied or
aggrieved by the disposal of said representation/further
representation by R4, it is open to such person to either come to
this Court or approach any other appropriate legal fora as
permissible in law. If such scenario unfurls, this Court and/or any
other legal fora shall consider the matter on its own merits and in
accordance with law untrammeled by instant order.
[14] Captioned PiL is disposed of as closed in the aforesaid manner
albeit with afore-referred directions/observations and preservation of rights
and contentions. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE John Kom 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 14 of 14
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2026.07.28
18:17:08 +05'30'
