Uripok Nupi Apunba Lup (UNAL) v. State of Manipur and 4 ors
PIL/20/2024 · 2025-02-17
Golmei Gaiphulshillu Kabui
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 2192 (MAN) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 2192 (MAN) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
Items No. 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
PIL No.20 of 2024
Uripok Nupi Apunba Lup(UNAL). Petitioner Vs. State of Manipur & 4 Ors Respondents
BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. D. KRISHNAKUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU KABUI
ORDER
17.02.2025 D. Krishnakumar, C.J. :
Mr. KH. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel, appears for the petitioner and Mr. H. Debendra, learned Dy. AG for the State respondents. This PIL has been filed by the Uripok Nupi Apunba Lup(UNAL) represented by its President, Smt. Potshangbam Jayshree Devi seeking to provide adequate security arrangements to the Members of the Manipur Commission for Protection of Child Rights while visiting the spot/place from where the said three innocent children were abducted on 11.11.2024 by the suspected Hmar militants and killed later on and also to conduct the necessary enquiry/investigation by collecting evidences and to give a recommendation to the State Government in accordance with law within a stipulated period by invoking Section 13(j)(i), Section 14 and Section 15(i) of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. KABORAMBAM SANDEEP SINGH Digitally signed by KABORAMBAM SANDEEP SINGH Date: 2025.02.19 14:41:38 +05'30'
2
When the matter is taken up today, Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that recommendation has been submitted to the State Government but so far, they have not taken any action based on the said recommendation made by the said Committee. Since the prayer as sought for by the petitioner is only for the aforesaid direction, we are of the view that the prayer sought for has become infructuous in view of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, to say that so far, no action has been taken on the recommendation made by the said Committee. It is made clear that liberty is granted to the aggrieved person to make representation to the Government for implementing the aforesaid recommendation of the Committee as per law. Further, if the person concerned or person concerned representing for the affected families is aggrieved, they can also approach the authority as per Rules. In view of the above, PIL is disposed of.
JUDGE
CHIEF JUSTICE John Kom