1 Sl. No. 37 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC(WA) No. 115 of 2025 Thoudam Nixon Singh, aged about 46 years, S/o(L) Th. Joykumar Singh, resident of Mongsangei Mayai Leikai, P.O. Canchipur & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795003 & Anr. Applicants Vs. The State of Manipur, represented by the Commissioner/Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur at New Secretariat, Eastern Block, Babupara PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001 & 11 Ors. Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA (ORDER) (Order of the Court was made by Mr. M. Sundar, CJ) 20.02.2026 [1] This order will now dispose of captioned miscellaneous case (MC). [2] This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 13.02.2026 which reads as follows: ‘13.02.2026 [1] There are 2 (two) applicants and 12 (twelve) respondents in the captioned MC which has been filed with a condonation of delay (CoD) prayer. JOHN TELEN KOM Digitally signed by JOHN TELEN KOM Date: 2026.02.23 18:15:29 +05'30' 2 [2] On 05.12.2025 notice was issued, in the next listing on 23.01.2026 some of the respondents were served and Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel for applicants who is before us in the physical court today sought time to file proof of service with regard to the other respondents. [3] Today, it comes to light that with the exception of R9 and R10, all other respondents are represented by counsel and the details are as follows : R1 to R4 is represented by Mr. Y. Robert, learned State Counsel led by Mr. S. Nepolean, learned senior advocate. R8 is represented by Mr. N. Leo, learned counsel who is led by Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior advocate for R8. R11 is represented by Mr. P. Tamphamani, learned counsel on record for R11. R12 is represented by Mr. M. Rendy, learned counsel on record for R12. [4] As regards R5, R6 and R7, though not reflected in the cause list, this Court is informed that Ms. Th. Lekhakumari, learned counsel has entered appearance and Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior counsel, appeared on her behalf and is before us. [5] As regards R9 and R10, Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu requests for time to file proof of service. [6] Request acceded to. [7] List 1 (one) week hence. [8] List on 20.02.2026.’ [3] The afore-referred 13.02.2026 proceedings shall now be read as an integral part and parcel of instant order. [4] The same set of learned counsel and senior counsel as captured in paragraphs 3 and 4 of previous proceedings made in the listing on 13.02.2026 are before this Court today also. 3 [5] As regards R9 and R10, Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel for MC applicant submits that proof of service has been filed and Registry confirms the same. As regards R10, Mr. K. Achouba, learned counsel is before this Court today but R9 though duly served has neither entered appearance through counsel nor chosen to come to Court and oppose captioned MC. To be noted, there is no representation for R9 either in the physical Court or on the Video Conferencing platform. [6] Captioned MC was taken up with the consent by both sides. [7] The MC application more particularly paragraph 3 thereat talks about intervening holidays qua impugned order and filing of the appeal. [8] All the respondents submit that the above can hardly be a reason for delay and appellants should have been diligent. [9] Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the matter besides noticing that the delay is only 5(five) days, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for condoning the delay. There is another important reason for this Court considering this to be a fit case for acceding to CoD prayer that another important reason is, there is another intra-court appeal i.e., WA No. 46 of 2025 which is directed against another Writ Petition (WP) but which came to be disposed of vide same impugned order (common order) and there is overlap qua subject matter. This means that the impugned order of Hon’ble Single Bench, in any case is going to be tested in an intra-court appeal. [10] In the light of the narrative thus far, prayer to condone delay in captioned MC is acceded to. 4 [11] Registry to process the intra-court appeal. If objections are removed and appeal is otherwise in order, Registry to assign a number, tag the writ appeal along with afore-referred WA No.46 of 2025 and list on the date given to WA No.46 of 2025 and MC thereat. [12] Captioned MC allowed/ordered as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE John Kom