P a g e 1 | 2 Item No. 26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC(WA) No. 106 of 2024 State of Manipur & 3 Ors. … Applicants - Versus - Laishram Chaobhal Singh & Anr. … Respondents B E F O R E HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. D. KRISHNAKUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU O R D E R 19.03.2025 [D. Krishnakumar, CJ] [1] Mr. H. Debendra, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Ms. Thanmiyo Keishing, learned counsel appears for the applicants, Mr. Ch. Robinchandra, learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 2. [2] According to the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, the present application has been filed for condoning the delay of 194 days in filling the accompany appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(C) No. 17 of 2023. In the application, it has been averred that opinion has been sought for by the Deputy Secretary (Law) vide letter dated 24.05.2024 to prefer the writ appeal before this Court against the order of the Writ Court and based on the said legal opinion, the same was forwarded to the learned Advocate General, Manipur 05.06.2024. After getting necessary approval from the Joint Secretary (PHE) dated 10.06.2024, the file was sent to the learned KHOIROM BIPINCHAND RA SINGH Digitally signed by KHOIROM BIPINCHANDRA SINGH Date: 2025.03.20 10:37:47 +05'30' P a g e 2 | 2 Advocate General, Manipur and certified copy was applied on 11.06.2024 and the same was ready on 22.07.2024. The ground of delay of 194 days in preferring the appeal was sent to the Department by the office of the learned Advocate General, Manipur vide letter dated 02.10.2024. In such circumstances, the learned Dy. A.G. appearing for the applicants seeks for condoning the delay of 194 days with the bonafide reasons. [3] Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has no objection to the prayer made by the learned Dy.A.G. appearing for the applicant. However, Mr. Ch. Robinchandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 objected the prayer stating that the present application for condoning the delay of 194 days in filing the writ appeal may be allowed subject to payment of cost. [4] Being satisfied with the reasons above, the delay of 194 days in filing the accompany writ appeal is condoned and accordingly, the present application is allowed. [5] Registry is directed to number the appeal. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Bipin