Item No. 13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL WP(C) No. 746 of 2025 Samadram Sanatomba Meetei. …Petitioner - Versus - State of Manipur & 5 Ors. …Respondents B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA O R D E R 23-09-2025 [1] Heard Mr. L. Sevananda, learned counsel along with Mr. H. Shivarex, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, learned Government Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 appearing through video conferencing; and Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Y. Niha, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No. 3, IMC. [2] The petitioner, who is a shopkeeper taken on rent by depositing a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the owner, Shri Surensangbam Ajit Singh for running a shop bearing No. 1, Thangal Bazar, Ngari Galli, submitted a representation to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur vide letter dated 25-08-2025 for eviction of illegal street vendors before his shop. The petitioner also submitted another representation dated 14-07-2025 to the Commissioner, IMC and a reminder dated 21-08-2025. The MAHUD Department has forwarded the complaint of the petitioner to the Imphal Municipal Corporation. It is stated that all the representations are pending before the authority. NINGOM BAM VICTORIA Digitally signed by NINGOMBAM VICTORIA Date: 2025.09.25 12:00:20 +05'30' [3] Mr. L. Sevananda, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage by directing respondent No. 3, Commissioner, Imphal Municipal Corporation to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order within a stipulated period. [4] Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents, submits that the State respondents have no role as it is for the Imphal Municipal Corporation to take a decision. [5] Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned senior counsel for Imphal Municipal Corporation, submits that two months’ time may be granted to the Imphal Municipal Corporation for deciding the pending representations submitted by the petitioner. [6] Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Commissioner, Imphal Municipal Corporation to decide the pending representations submitted by the petitioner on merit by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. [7] With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. [8] It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the merit of the case. JUDGE Victoria