1 Sl. No. 7&8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC(PIL)No.36 of 2025 With PIL No.2 of 2025 Ahanthem Irabot & 2 Ors. Petitioners Vs. Union of India & 5 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 Mr. M. Sundar, CJ) 08.12.2025 [1] Instant order will now dispose of the captioned main Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and Captioned Misc. Case(MC) thereat. [2] In the hearing today, Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior advocate instructed by Mr. Rustam, learned counsel on record for 3(three) PIL petitioners, Mr. W. Darakishwor, learned Senior Penal Counsel for Central Government (Sr.PCCG) for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. H. Debendra, learned Deputy Advocate General(Dy.AG) and senior advocate instructed by Mr. Dimal Kumar Haobam, learned counsel on record for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are before this Court. (To be noted, R1, R2 etc. denote 1st respondent, 2nd respondent respectively and similar abbreviations are being used in instant order with regard to other respondents also for the sake of convenience and clarity). JOHN TELEN KOM Digitally signed by JOHN TELEN KOM Date: 2025.12.09 18:48:23 +05'30' 2 [3] This Court, with the consent of all the afore-mentioned senior counsel and counsel on record took up the main PIL and heard out the same. [4] At the outset, learned Dy.AG, adverting to affidavit-in-opposition of R6(the Superintendent of Police, Imphal East District, Government of Manipur) submitted that there are no bunker like structures in the area concerned, regular foot patrolling is being conducted and most importantly annual public prayer/ritual at Kongba Maru Laiphamlel was held on 06.04.2025. To be noted, this is articulated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in- opposition of R6. It is also to be noted that the main PIL was filed in this Court on 21.01.2025. [5] Learned senior counsel for PIL petitioners very fairly submitted that the above submission of the learned Dy.AG is correct and that the annual public ritual programme was in fact and indeed conducted on 06.04.2025. This submission on behalf of the PIL petitioners is recorded. [6] The narrative thus far necessarily means that the main prayer in the PIL has since been answered. There is no disputation or contestation between the two sides on this aspect of the matter. [7] Be that as it may, captioned MC was filed in this Court on 28.10.2025, inter-alia with a prayer pertaining to ritual every ‘Nongmapanba’(1st day of Lunar Calendar). This MC is predicated on a representation dated 01.10.2025(‘said representation’ for convenience) sent to District Magistrate Imphal East by a Trust which goes by the name ‘Kongba Maru Semgat Lup’ (KOMSEL) (‘said Trust’ for the sake of convenience). This means that the said representation was sent pending PIL. In this regard, 3 learned senior counsel for State submitted that questions such as whether it is a time immemorial ritual has to be first examined and if that be so, the security concerns also have to be addressed. [8] This Court finds that said representation dated 01.10.2025 from said Trust has been signed by Secretary of said Trust and he is not one of the 3(three) PIL petitioners. Therefore, it will suffice to take on record the submission of the learned State counsel that the said representation is being looked into. Depending on the call which the State might take qua said representation, if the said Trust has any ground to be ventilated, it is open to the said Trust to come to this Court and rights and contentions of said Trust in this regard are preserved. To be noted, this approach is inter-alia being taken as said Trust is not a party to the captioned PIL. [9] This Court is of the considered view that recording the stated position of the parties will suffice to give a closure to the captioned PIL and the captioned MC thereat. We do so. To put it differently, captioned PIL and captioned MC thereat are disposed of as closed recording the stated position of the parties which has been captured supra in this order. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE John Kom