Item Nos. 1 & 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL W.P. (C) No. 708 of 2024 With MC(WP(C)) No. 789 of 2024 Soraijam Maipak Meetei ….Petitioner - Versus - Union of India & anr. …Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA 12.02.2025 [1] Present Mr. W. Shantikumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mrs. Ch. Sundari, learned G.A. for the State; and Mr. W. Darakeshwar, learned Sr. PCCG appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. [2] By the present writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the order dated 02.06.2015 passed by this Court in RSA No. 1 of 2006 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein. The petitioner earlier approached the Court of Civil Judge Jr. Division, Bishnupur by way of O.S. No. 15 of 1998 and vide judgment & order dated 29.04.2005, the suit regarding the 36 Meitei Mayek Script was decreed. However, in the appeal filed by the respondents herein, vide order dated 20.01.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2005, the judgment & decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bishnupur, was set-aside and vide impugned order dated 02.06.2015, this Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioner herein. LAIRENMAYUM INDRAJEET SINGH Digitally signed by LAIRENMAYUM INDRAJEET SINGH Date: 2025.02.13 10:15:47 +05'30' 2 Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court with the following prayer:- (i) To register the case as a writ petition (Civil) before the Hon’ble Lordships. (ii) To pass orders restoring the decrees of the Civil Judge Jr. Division, Bishnupur, Manipur. (iii) To issue orders and directions to recommend the Script propounded by the Plaintiff to be the oldest/earliest and real Meetei Script/Manipur Script. (iv) To de-recognise the Script of 27 alphabets of the opposite party, by cancelling the special gazette No. 282 dated 2/12/1996. (v) To pass orders for study in the educational institutions and schools the Script of the Plaintiffs. (vi) To pass orders to announce in the official Gazette the Script of the plaintiff to be official Script of Manipuri Language/Meetei Lon for all purposes. (vii) To pass orders for investigating into the fraudulent acts of the opposite parties- misleading the Government without re- constituting the Expert Committee the announcement/publication in the Special Gazette No. 282 the recommendation of the Script 27 for State language. (viii) To pass appropriate decrees for the end of justice. [3] Learned counsel for the respondents raised the objection of the maintainability of the writ petition challenging the order passed by this Court in second appeal on the ground that the writ petition cannot be preferred against an order passed by this Court on judicial side. [4] This Court has perused the materials on record and heard the submission of the parties. The prayer No. 2 in the present writ petition is for restoration of the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge Jr. Division, Bishnupur, Manipur. This Court is of the opinion that the prayer is to set-aside the judgment & order dated 20.01.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Manipur West in Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2005 as well as order dated 02.06.2015 passed by this Court in RSA No. 1 of 3 2006. In other words, the present writ petition challenges the correctness of the decision of the learned District Judge, Imphal West as well as the order passed by this Court in second appeal. It may be noted that a 7 Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & ors. Vrs. State of Maharastra & ors. AIR 1967 SC1 held that writ petition under Article 226 & Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable against any judicial order. In the present case, the order under challenged being the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Judge as well as by this Court and according to the decision of the Naresh Shridhar (supra), the writ petition under Article 226 as well as 227 would not be maintainable. It is also clarified that the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is also not maintainable against any order passed by the High Court on its judicial side and the same is to examine correctness of an order passed by a Court or tribunal under the supervision of the High Court. [5] In view of the above proportion of law, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of maintainability, however, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for his grievances as per law. [6] Misc. application is also disposed of. JUDGE Indrajeet