CONT. CAS (C) No. 61 of 2022 Page 1 Item No. 21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL CONT. CAS (C) No. 61 of 2022 Sougaijam Arunkumar Singh; & Ors. Petitioners Vs. Laishram Maniyaima; & Ors. Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. D. KRISHNAKUMAR ORDER 31.01.2025 Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel, appears for the petitioner. Mr. L. Anand, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, drew attention of this Court to the impugned common order dated 22.12.2021 passed in W.P. (C) No. 485 of 2016 and W.P. (C) No. 605 of 2017 and submits that W.P. (C) No. 485 of 2016, out of which the present contempt petition arises, was dismissed by this Court and W.P. (C) No. 605 of 2017 was disposed of with the direction to the respondent No. 3 to process the wages due to the petitioners from 01.03.2016 to 31.05.2016. Mr. L. Anand, learned senior counsel, by referring to letter dated 21.02.2022 addressed by the Executive Officer, Bishnupur Municipal Council, stated that the wages due to the petitioners from 01.03.2016 to 31.05.2016 have been settled to the account of the petitioners and hence, the direction issued by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 605 of 2017 is complied with. KABORAMB AM SANDEEP SINGH Digitally signed by KABORAMBAM SANDEEP SINGH Date: 2025.02.04 15:58:26 +05'30' CONT. CAS (C) No. 61 of 2022 Page 2 Learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, further submits that the instant contempt petition has been filed for disobedience of the direction passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 485 of 2016, which was dismissed by the writ court, as such, the present contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. Having gone through the impugned order dated 22.12.2021 passed in W.P. (C) No. 485 of 2016 and W.P. (C) No. 605 of 2017, this Court is of the view that since W.P. (C) No. 485 of 2016 was dismissed by this Court, the instant contempt petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the present contempt petition stands closed. In so far as W.P. (C) No. 605 of 2017 is concerned, this Court has not taken any view whether the order has been complied with or not. The petitioners are given to liberty to work out their remedy, if any, in accordance with law. The CHIEF JUSTICE Sandeep