Sl. No. 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC (WA) No. 116 of 2025 [Ref: WA No. 67 of 2019] Shri Gaisuilung Gonmei aged about 65 years, S/o Gaichanglung Gonmei a resident of Makhuam village, P.O. & P.S. Noney, Noney District, Manipur, Pin - 795159. Applicant Vs. 1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner (Revenue), Government of Manipur, P.O – Imphal, P.S. – Imphal West, Manipur - 795001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Tamenglong, Tamenglong District, Manipur - 795141. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Noney, Noney District, Manipur - 795159. 4. The Deputy Chief Engineer, CON/NF-Railway, Imphal, Imphal West, Manipur - 795140. Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA For applicants Mr. Th. Ibohal, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. Nishal Likmabam, Advocate For respondent Nos. 1-3 Mr. RK. Umakanta, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. W. Niranjit, Dy. Government Advocate For respondent No. 4 Mr. BR Sharma, Central Government Counsel (CGC) along with Ms. Pamchui, Advocate Date of Order 09.09.2026 ORDER (M. Sundar, CJ) [1] Captioned ‘Miscellaneous Case’ (‘MC’ for the sake of brevity) has been taken out by the sole appellant in the captioned ‘Writ Appeal’ (‘WA’ for the sake of brevity) with a simple prayer to bring on record a reply obtained KABORAMBA M SANDEEP SINGH Digitally signed by KABORAMBAM SANDEEP SINGH Date: 2026.09.09 18:40:05 +05'30' by the MC applicant by making a query under ‘Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005)’ {‘RTI Act’ for the sake of brevity}. [2] The MC applicant is the querist under RTI Act and the reply is a ‘communication dated 20.08.2025 bearing reference No. File No.: DC(TML)12/R.T.I./2025 from Deputy Commissioner, Tamenglong’ (‘said RTI response’ for the sake of convenience) and a scanned reproduction of said RTI response is as follows: [3] Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have not filed affidavits-in-opposition and as regards respondent No. 4, an affidavit-in-opposition dated 07.09.2026 has been filed. [4] Be that as it may, considering the innocuous nature of the prayer, Mr. RK Umakanta, senior counsel and learned public prosecutor,, instructed by Mr. W. Niranjit, learned State counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, on instructions and Mr. BR Sharma, learned CGC for respondent No. 4 (notwithstanding the affidavit-in-opposition) submitted that they are not opposing the prayer to bring on record said RTI response but they only request that their rights and contentions to make submissions on merits qua said RTI response and the contents of the same may be preserved. [5] The afore-referred fair stand of learned State counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned CGC for respondent No. 4 (notwithstanding the affidavit-in-opposition) makes the task of disposal of captioned MC fairly simple. This means that this Court need not be detained further by captioned MC. [6] Captioned MC is allowed/ordered as prayed for albeit with preservation of rights and contentions of the respondents as above. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Sandeep