Manipur High Court
State Of Manipur & 7 Ors vs Pheiroijam Heramani & 16 Ors on 28 April, 2026
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2026.04.29
11:33:56 +05'30' Item No. 1-11(Special Division Bench)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(REVIEW PET.) No. 2 of 2026
State of Manipur & 7 Ors.
... Applicants
- Versus -
Pheiroijam Heramani & 16 Ors.
... Respondents
With MC(REVIEW PET.) No. 27 of 2025
With MC(REVIEW PET.) No. 28 of 2025
With MC(REVIEW PET.) No. 29 of 2025
With MC(REVIEW PET.) No. 3 of 2026
With REVIEW PET. No. 33 of 2025
With REVIEW PET. No. 34 of 2025
With REVIEW PET. No. 35 of 2025
With REVIEW PET. No. 37 of 2025
With REVIEW PET. No. 38 of 2025
With REVIEW PET. No. 39 of 2025
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
O R D E R
[M. Sundar, CJ]
28.04.2026.
[1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier
proceedings made in the previous listing on 16.04.2026 which reads as follows:
‘[1] Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Attorney General for India instructed
by Mr. Kartikay Agrawal, learned counsel, Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned
Advocate General of Manipur instructed by Mr. O. Ratankumar, learned
State counsel, Mr. Dimalkumar Haobam, learned State counsel, Mr. I. Amri,P a g e 1 | 10
learned State counsel, Ms. Sharmila Rahman, learned State counsel, Mr.
S. Chittaranjan, learned Additional Advocate General of Manipur for State
of Manipur and Mr. Ch. Momon, learned standing counsel for State Election
Commissioner, Manipur are before this Court (Physical Court).
[2] Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr. A.
Arunkumar, learned counsel on record for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 6 in
Review Petition No. 33 of 2025, Ms. Ayangleima, learned counsel on record
for respondent Nos. 11 to 17 in Review Petition No. 33 of 2025 and Mr. S.
Biswajit, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr. Sanatomba, learned
counsel on record and Mr. H. Pravirkumar, learned counsel on record for
petitioners in Review Petition No. 37 of 2025, Review Petition No. 38 of
2025 and Review Petition No. 39 of 2025 are before this Court (Physical
Court).
[3] Learned Attorney General for India continued and concluded his
submissions.
[4] The following 2 (two) points which are relevant to legal drill at hand
emerge:
(i) there is an amendment to ‘Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
(26 of 1994)’ (‘said Act’ for the sake of brevity and
convenience). In and vide this amendment 30 Sections i.e.,
Sections 110 to 139 have been added to the said Act and the
same have been slotted under Chapter – VI. These 30
Sections kicked in i.e. came into force on or from 22.02.2023;
(ii) adverting to our earlier proceedings made in the listing on
13.03.2026, more particularly paragraph No. 5 thereat,
learned Attorney General for India on instructions submitted
that State Election Commissioner has since been appointed
vide an order dated 15.04.2024 bearing reference No. Com-
3/2/2026/SEC-LAW. A scanned reproduction of this order
placed before this Court is as follows:
P a g e 2 | 10
[5] The following 3(three) points unfurled in the hearing:
(i) as regards MC(REVIEW PET.) No. 2 of 2026 taken out by
State, learned Advocate General of Manipur on instructions
submitted that in limb No. (iii) of the prayer the expression ’till
the conduct of fresh election’ is not being pressed and that
the same can be treated as deleted. This submission is
recorded and MC(REVIEW PET.) No. 2 of 2026 will now be
considered on this basis;
(ii) adverting to sub-paragraph No. (x) of paragraph No. 64 of order
dated 29.08.2025 (order sought to be reviewed), it was
submitted by Mr. Ch. Momon, learned standing counsel for
State Election Commissioner, Manipur that election for local
bodies will positively be conducted within 6 (six) months from
today i.e. on or before 16.10.2026. In this regard, it was further
submitted by learned standing counsel that elections will be so
conducted as per amended said Act more particularly theP a g e 3 | 10
amendment qua tiers (3 tiers). It was also submitted by learned
standing counsel for State Election Commissioner, Manipur that
determination of elected members as per Section 99 of the said
Act would be done on the basis of 2011 Census. This
submission made on instructions by learned standing counsel
for State Election Commissioner, Manipur is recorded as a
undertaking given to this Court. Be that as it may, learned
standing counsel volunteered to file an affidavit of undertaking
in this regard;
(iii) adverting to sub-paragraph No. (xi) of paragraph No. 64 of the
order that is sought to be reviewed i.e. common order dated
29.08.2025 in W.A. No. 9 of 2024, W.A. No. 10 of 2024 and
W.A. No. 11 of 2024, learned Attorney General for India
submitted on instructions that as regards the liberty given to
State Government qua appointment of Administrative
Committees for Gram Panchayats and Administrators for Zilla
Parishads inter-alia vide Sections 22 and 92 respectively of said
Act, the State Government has embarked upon the exercise
and would complete the exercise as expeditiously as possible.
[6] As regards other aspects of the matter, adverting to proceedings
made on 15.12.2025, more particularly Paragraph No. 4 thereat, it was
submitted by learned Attorney General for India that though it was earlier
submitted that the review is confined to four Sub-paragraphs of Paragraph
No. 64 namely, sub-paragraph Nos. (viii) to (xi), it is now confined to sub-
paragraph No. (x) besides touching upon sub-paragraph No. (xi) which
read as follows:
‘[64] In view of the above findings, observations and directions,
we hold and direct as follows:
i) ……………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………
ix) ……………………………………………………………
x) The State Govt. is directed to conduct fresh election
within a period of 6 months.
xi) Till the next election is conducted as directed in para
(x) above, the State Govt. is at liberty to appoint fresh
P a g e 4 | 10
Administrative Committee for the Gram Panchayat
and Administrator for Zilla Parishad in terms of the
provisions of Section 22, Section 92 and Section 109
of the Manipur Panchayati Raj, Act 1994 for a period
not exceeding 6 months.’
[7] After conclusion of submissions of learned Attorney General for
India and Mr. Ch. Momon, learned standing counsel for State Election
Commissioner, Manipur, Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel
instructed by Mr. A. Arunkumar, learned counsel on record very fairly
submitted that with regard to conduct of elections to local bodies within 6
(six) months from today about which there is allusion elsewhere supra in
this order, he is on the same page and he supports the submissions made
by learned standing counsel for State Election Commissioner, Manipur and
this submission is recorded. To be noted, in this regard, Mr. S. Biswajit,
learned senior counsel instructed by Mr. Sanatomba, learned counsel on
record submitted that he also supports the submissions made by Mr. Ch.
Momon, learned standing counsel for State Election Commissioner,
Manipur and this submission is also recorded.
[8] Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel submitted that with regard
to the liberty given to State Government vide Sub-paragraph No. (xi) of
Paragraph No. 64 of the order sought to be reviewed and the exercise
which State Government has embarked upon, he has some submissions to
be made. Be that as it may, learned senior counsel submitted that the
review itself is not maintainable and pressed into service oft quoted,
celebrated ‘Padma Sundara Rao & Ors. -vs- State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.’
[(2002) 3 SCC 533] and adverted to paragraph 15 thereat regarding cases
on issues and as to when cases on issues which is a construction principle
can be supplied by Court. ‘Inderchand Jain -vs- Motilal’ [(2009) 14 SCC
663] was also relied upon and paragraph 33 thereat was adverted to five
principles propounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding review
jurisdiction.
[9] Thereafter the learned senior counsel expressed difficulty at his end
in continuing submissions today/tomorrow and requested for rescheduling
the captioned matter to another date.
[10] In the next listing, the affidavit alluded to supra in this order shall be
filed by Mr. Ch. Momon, learned standing counsel for State Election
Commissioner, Manipur and Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior counsel will
P a g e 5 | 10
continue and conclude his submissions followed by Mr. S. Biswajit, learned
senior counsel and reply, if any, on behalf of State.
[11] List under cause list caption ‘PART HEARD’ on 28.04.2026.’
[2] At the outset, Mr. Ch. Momon, learned Standing counsel for State
Election Commission, Manipur, adverting to sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph 5
of afore-referred earlier proceedings dated 16.04.2026 submitted that an
affidavit of undertaking dated 27.04.2026 has been filed. A scanned
reproduction of this affidavit (sans the cause title) is as follows:
[3] As regards the paragraph 1 of the afore-referred affidavit of
undertaking, there is no difficulty and the same is taken on file. As regards
P a g e 6 | 10
paragraph 2, it talks about 2001/2011 census though it was earlier submittedby learned Standing Counsel for State Election Commission that Section 99
drill {Section 99 of Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (26 of 1994)} which has
been referred to as ‘said Act’ in the previous proceedings dated 16.04.2026}
will be as per 2011 census. Paragraph No. 2 of the afore-referred affidavit of
undertaking talks about 2001/2011 census. It was pointed out that paragraph
No. 2 therefore is not in complete consonance with the submission made
earlier.
[4] Mr. Ch. Momon, learned Standing Counsel for State Election
Commission sought time to file a better affidavit of undertaking with annexures
if so desired and if so advised. As regards paragraph 2 alone, to be noted
paragraph 1 has been taken on file as already alluded to.
[5] Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr. A.
Arunkumar, learned counsel adverting to paragraph 8 of the earlier proceedings
dated 16.04.2026 submitted that State Government has since appointed
Administrative Committees and has published the same in official Gazette
dated 28.04.2026 today (to be noted, the appointment is vide proceedings
dated 27.4.2026). A scanned reproduction of the Gazette publication (sans
annexures/which contains the names of the appointees) is as follows:
P a g e 7 | 10
This according to learned senior counsel is over-reached by the StateGovernment and has nullified any further submissions.
[6] Responding to this submission, Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned
Advocate General (AG) for State of Manipur along with Soraisham Chittaranjan
Singh, learned Addl. Advocate General (Addl. AG) drew our attention to sub-
paragraph (iii) of paragraph 5 of earlier proceedings and submitted that as
already submitted the exercise embarked upon by State Government has since
been completed not only for Imphal East but 5(five) other Districts also viz.,
P a g e 8 | 10
Imphal West, Thoubal, Bishnupur, Jiribam, Kakching and placed before us theGazette notifications with regard to all six Districts (including Imphal West).
[7] Though obvious, for the sake of specificity and clarity we deem it
appropriate to write that we have only captured the rival submissions and the
stated position of the parties in this regard in this proceedings and the same
will be dealt with when final order in the review petitions are made.
[8] Reverting to the affidavit of undertaking of State Election
Commission, Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr.
W. Sanatomba, learned counsel pointed out that there is an earlier order dated
19.01.2007 made in Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition (PIL) No.16 of
2005 by a Division Bench which touches upon census report. It was submitted
that this 19.01.2007 order was carried to Hon’ble Supreme Court and Mr. W.
Sanatomba, learned counsel sought time to place the order of Hon’ble
Supreme Court before this Court.
[9] Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei, learned senior counsel added that with
regard to constitution of Administrative Committees (which according to Mr.
H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel has nullified his further submissions)
there has been no transparency. Responding to this as well as the earlier
submissions of learned senior counsel Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned AG pressed
into service Rattanindia case law being Rattanindia Power Limited reported
in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2936 for the principle that a respondent cannot
question the correctness of an order without filing an appeal, cross-appeal or
cross-objection and for the further principle that the person who fails to file an
P a g e 9 | 10
appeal or cross-objection can be taken as one who is not aggrieved by the
operative part of the order.
[10] Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel and Mr. S. Biswajit
Meitei, learned senior counsel submitted that the orders appointing
Administrative Committees should be kept in abeyance but this Court is of the
considered view that if aggrieved by the orders, it is open to the parties
concerned to assail the same in a manner known to law for being decided on
its own merits and in accordance with law and we are not inclined to pass any
interim order in this regard in this proceeding.
[11] To enable Mr. Ch. Momon, learned Standing Counsel for State
Election Commission to file a better affidavit of undertaking and Mr. W.
Sanatomba, learned counsel who is instructing Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei, learned
senior counsel to place before this Court the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court
arising from the PIL, let these matters stand over to 06.05.2026 before this
Special Bench at 2:00 pm.
[12] List on 06.05.2026.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
John Kom
P a g e 10 | 10