Sl. No. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL W.P. (C) No. 895 of 2025 Sanoujam Shyamcharan Singh Petitioner Vs. State of Manipur; & Ors. Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH (ORDER) (Order of the Court was made by M. Sundar, CJ) 02.12.2025 [1] This order will now dispose of the captioned Writ Petition (WP). [2] This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing yesterday (01.12.2025) which reads as follows: ‘01.12.2025 After some arguments, Dr. Rabi Khan, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, sought time to get instructions as it came to light that Representations and Right to Information (RTI) queries have not been sent by writ petitioner. This Court is also informed that writ petitioner is a member of this Bar. At request of learned counsel for writ petitioner, list tomorrow, i.e., on 02.12.2025 under the caption ‘ADJOURNED ADMISSION’.’ [2] Now that the above proceedings would be read as an integral part and parcel of the instant order, the abbreviations used in the earlier proceedings shall be used in the instant order also. KABORAMBA M SANDEEP SINGH Digitally signed by KABORAMBAM SANDEEP SINGH Date: 2025.12.03 18:10:49 +05'30' [3] Adverting to earlier proceedings dated 01.12.2025, Dr. Rabi Khan, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, submitted that further instructions have been taken from writ petitioner and he sought leave to withdraw the captioned WP and made a further request to preserve all the rights and contentions of writ petitioner to come back to this Court with a fresh petition, if the need arises. To be noted, such a scenario unfurled as it was noticed that the representations and RTI queries on which captioned WP is predicated have been sent/made by an individual other than writ petitioner. To put it differently, representations/RTI queries on which captioned WP is predicated have not been sent/made by writ petitioner. A scanned reproduction of the endorsement made in this regard by learned counsel on record for writ petitioner in the case file is as follows: [4] In the light of the narrative thus far, the afore-referred request of learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is acceded to, making it clear that the captioned WP is now disposed of as withdrawn/closed (without expressing any view/opinion on the merits of the matter) preserving the rights and contentions of writ petitioner to come back to this Court on the same issue after making suitable representation or for the individual who has already made the representations and RTI queries to come to this Court. It is also made clear that the captioned matter is being treated as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and therefore we preserve the rights and contentions of any other person concerned, writ petitioner and person who has already sent representations/made RTI queries to come to this Court by way of a PIL only and if such a scenario unfurls, such PIL will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammeled by instant order. [5] Caption WP disposed of as closed/withdrawn albeit with preservation of rights and observations as above in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Sandeep