Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Manipur · body

2025 DAILYLAW 957 (MAN)

Md Rabi Khan v. State of Manipur and 5 others

PIL/7/2025 · 2025-04-30

A Guneshwar Sharma

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

PIL No. 7 of 2025 Page 1 Item No. 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL PIL No. 7 of 2025 Md. Rabi Khan Petitioner Vs. State of Manipur; & Ors. Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. D. KRISHNAKUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA ORDER 30.04.2025 D. Krishnakumar, C.J. : [1] Md. Rabi Khan, the petitioner, appears in person before this Court; Mr. M. Rarry, learned senior counsel, appears for the State respondents; and Md. Ajmal Hussain, learned counsel, appears for the newly impleaded respondent Nos. 7-11. [2] The present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed, praying as follows: ii) issue of writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/order/direction against the authorities concerned directing them to take necessary action against the concerned officials including the Board Members/Chairman of the Waqf Board Manipur for misusing and mismanagement of the funds and many others by the office of the said Board. iii) issue of writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/order/direction against the authorities concerned directing them to direct the State Government/Authorities to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or handing over the case to any independent investigating Agency like CBI/any investigating agency for investigating into the matter. [3] The petitioner, who appears in person, is an advocate practicing as a lawyer in High Courts and Sub-ordinate Courts of the State of Manipur and KABORAMBA M SANDEEP SINGH Digitally signed by KABORAMBAM SANDEEP SINGH Date: 2025.05.01 08:57:21 +05'30' PIL No. 7 of 2025 Page 2 other States belonging to the most backward and micro minority (Manipuri Muslim) community. He made representation dated 01.11.2024 to the Commissioner, Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, India; and another representation dated 27.01.2025 addressed to the Hon’ble Union Minister (Minority Affairs), New Delhi – for taking necessary action against the Board Members/Chairman of the Waqf Board, Manipur, for misusing and mismanagement of the funds and many others by the said Board and for directing the concerned authorities/police/any investigating agencies to enquire and book any culprit for misusing and mismanagement of funds related to Waqf Board, Manipur. [4] According to the petitioner, all the efforts taken by the petitioner has become futile, therefore, he has no other option except to approach this Court by filing the present petition in the guise of public interest litigation. [5] Mr. M. Rarry, learned senior counsel appearing for the State, raised objection for entertaining the present petition on the ground of maintainability of the petition filed in the guise of public interest litigation. Learned senior counsel, states that the petitioner has not satisfied the instructions issued under the High Court of Manipur (Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2019) for maintaining public interest litigation. Further, Mr. M. Rarry, learned senior counsel, strongly objected that the prayer as sought by the petitioner is for issuing a writ of mandamus and also direction to the State Government to constitute a special investigation team. However, no such representation has been made to the State Government seeking any such prayer, and therefore, the present PIL is not maintainable for the aforesaid prayers as sought by the petitioner. PIL No. 7 of 2025 Page 3 [6] After elaborate hearing and discussion, without going into the merit of the case, the petitioner fairly agrees that liberty may be given to him to make such representation to the state government for seeking such prayers to make enquiry into the petitioner’s complaint. [7] In such circumstances, we are not expressing any opinion on the maintainability of the present PIL, and liberty is granted to the petitioner to make a detailed representation along with relevant documents to the State Government authorities, who is a competent authority, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such representation, the State Government authority shall take appropriate decision as early as possible [8] With the above observation, the present petition is disposed of. Needless to state that, the State Government shall give opportunity to the Waqf Board, if necessary, before making any decision. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Sandeep