Sl. Nos. 37-40 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL CONT.CAS(C) No. 40 of 2026 Shri Janglenpao Baite, aged about 25 years S/o Ngamtong Baite, resident of Tamu Village, PS Tamu, Tamu District Mayanmar. Petitioner Vs. Shri N. Ashok Kumar (IAS), Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, Room No. 78, 2nd Floor, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur- 795002. Respondent With CONT.CAS(C) No. 41 of 2026 Shri Jamkholal Mate, aged about 45 years S/o (L) Thongsei Mate, resident of Tamu Village, PS Tamu, Tamu District Mayanmar. Petitioner Vs. Shri N. Ashok Kumar (IAS), Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, Room No. 78, 2nd Floor, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur- 795002. Respondent With CONT.CAS(C) No. 42 of 2026 Shri Lunkhothang Baite alias Lhunkhothang Baite aged about 46 years S/o Zam Lhun Baite alias Jamlun resident of Tamu Village, PS Tamu, Tamu District Mayanmar. Petitioner Vs. Shri N. Ashok Kumar (IAS), Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, Room No. 78, 2nd Floor, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur- 795002. Respondent With CONT.CAS(C) No. 43 of 2026 Shri Lalnunmawia Gangte, aged about 26 years S/o (L) Rochhunga Gangte, resident of Tamu Village, PS Tamu, Tamu District Mayanmar. Petitioner Vs. JOHN TELEN KOM Digitally signed by JOHN TELEN KOM Date: 2026.05.22 16:56:51 +05'30' Shri N. Ashok Kumar (IAS), Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, Room No. 78, 2nd Floor, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur- 795002. Respondent BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH For petitioner Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, Advocate For respondents Mr. S. Chittaranjan, Additional Advocate General along with Mr. A. Priyokumar, Advocate. Date of Judgment & Order 22.05.2026 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) (M. Sundar, CJ) [1] This common order will now dispose of the captioned 4(four) contempt cases. [2] In the hearing today, Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel on record for all the four contempt case petitioners. Mr. S. Chittaranjan, learned Additional Advocate General for Manipur together with Mr. A. Priyokumar, learned counsel, are before this Court on behalf of lone respondent in all the 4(four) contempt cases. [3] When the captioned 4(four) contempt cases were listed before this Court on 08.05.2026, proceedings were made and reproduction of this proceedings made in 08.05.2026 listing is as follows: ‘08.05.2026 [1] Captioned 4 (four) contempt petitions have been filed on the ground that directives given in ‘common judgment and order dated 11.03.2026 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 4 of 2026 with W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026 with W.P. (Crl.) No. 6 of 2026 and W.P. (Crl.) No. 7 of 2026’ (‘said order’ for the sake of convenience and clarity) have not been complied with by the sole respondent. [2] To be noted, in and vide said order, this Court directed the sole respondent in the captioned contempt petitions to dispose of a representation dated 24.02.2026 on its own merits and in accordance with law and with reference to the point that similarly placed persons have been repatriated/deported in exercise of powers under Section 11(1) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of 1946). As regards time frame, the direction was to dispose of said representation on or before 01.04.2026 by way of a speaking order and communicate the same (under due acknowledgment) to writ petitioners on or before 08.04.2026. [3] Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel for contempt petitioners, submits that captioned contempt petitions have been presented in this Court on 07.05.2026 and until this day, writ petitioners have not received orders/proceedings disposing of said representation. [4] Issue notice. [5] Mr. S. Chittaranjan, learned Additional Advocate General, Manipur along with Mr. A. Priyokumar Sharma, learned State counsel, accepts notice on behalf of sole respondent. Learned State counsel requests for time to get instructions and revert to this Court. [6] Afore-referred request of learned State counsel is acceded to. List a fortnight hence. [7] List on 22.05.2026.’ [4] Adverting to afore-referred 08.05.2026 proceedings, learned Additional Advocate General submits that representation dated 24.02.2026 from the 4(four) contempt case petitioners have since been disposed of on its own merits and in accordance with law by the respondent on 21.05.2026, pursuant to/in compliance with common order dated 11.03.2026 made by this Court in Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of 2026. [5] Learned Additional Advocate General has placed before us afore- referred proceedings/order dated 21.05.2026 bearing reference No. H- 2001/62/2026-HD-HD: vide which representation of writ petitioners/contempt petitioners has been disposed of and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: [6] Learned counsel on record for the contempt case petitioners has been favored with a copy of the afore-referred 21.05.2026 proceedings made by the lone respondent. [7] Learned Additional Advocate General, adverting to afore-referred 21.05.2026 proceedings made by respondent submits that order of this Hon’ble Court has since been complied and adverting to paragraph No. 3 of the proceedings, learned Additional Advocate General, further submits that Government of Manipur has taken a decision to repatriate/deport the contempt case petitioners inter alia in exercise of powers under Section 11(1) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of 1946) subject only to response from the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India about which there is allusion in paragraph No. 4 of 21.05.2026 proceedings. [8] In the light of the narrative thus far, we record compliance and discharge the respondent from the captioned contempt cases and purge respondent of contempt, making it clear that the respondent will now stand purged of contempt qua captioned 4(four) contempt cases. [9] Before writing the concluding paragraph, though obvious, we deem it appropriate to make it clear that it is open to contempt case petitioners to come back to this Court with suitable petitions regarding repatriation/deportation, if they have any further/other issues. If such a scenario unfurls, such petitions will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. [10] Ergo, sequitur is, captioned 4(four) contempt cases are disposed of as closed purging the respondent of contempt and discharging the respondent from all four captioned contempt cases. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Indrajeet