Sl. No. 19 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL Cont.Cas(C) No. 26 of 2026 Ref:- WP(C) No. 802 of 2025 Mr. Rarry Mangsatabam, aged about 56 years, S/o (L) Mangsatabam Iboyaima Singh, resident of Thangmeiband Yumnam Leikai, P.O. Lamphel, P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Pin – 795004. … Petitioner - Versus – 1. Dr. M. Basanta Kumar Sharma, Secretary, Bar Council of Manipur, High Court of Manipur Complex, Mantripukhri, Imphal - 795001 and 8 others. … Respondents B E F O R E HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR For the petitioner : Mr. Rarry Mangsatabam, senior advocate/party-in-person For the respondents : Mr. W. Sanatomba, Advocate for R1 to R9 led by Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei, senior advocate Date of hearing & order : 03.06.2026 O R D E R [1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 25.05.2026 which reads as follows : ‘Item No. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL CONT.CAS(C) No. 26 of 2026 Rarry Mangsatabam Petitioner/s Vrs. M. Basanta Kumar Sharma & 8 ors. SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2026.06.04 17:58:51 +05'30' Respondent/s BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR (ORDER) 25.05.2026 [1] In the captioned contempt case, Mr. Rarry Mangsatabam, who is the contempt petitioner appearing party-in-person is before this Court (physical Court). [2] Contempt petitioner appearing party-in-person is a learned Member of this Bar, he is a designated Senior Advocate and he is a elected member of ‘Bar Council of Manipur’ (‘BCM’ for the sake of brevity). [3] Learned contempt petitioner submits that he has filed WP(C) No. 802 of 2025 on 06.10.2025 inter alia assailing resolutions and notices of BCM which were made pursuant to/ acting on a complaint dated 22.07.2025 from one ‘Mr. Thongbam Mahipal Singh’ (‘complainant’ for the sake of brevity). [4] Contempt petitioner submitted that his afore-referred writ petition was entertained by this Court, notice was issued and an interim order was made on 29.10.2025. Contempt petitioner draws the attention of this Court to this 29.10.2025 order made in WP(Writ Petition) and MC(Miscellaneous Case) thereat and the same is as follows: ‘29.10.2025 [1] Writ petitioner in the captioned ‘main writ petition’ (‘WP' for the sake of brevity) is a member of High Court Bar Association of Manipur and is a designated senior advocate. Writ petitioner is also an elected member of Bar Council of Manipur. Writ petitioner is appearing party-in-person. [2] Epicenter of the captioned WP is a ‘complaint dated 22.07.2025’ (‘said complaint’ for convenience) from one Mr. Thongbam Mahipal Singh of Imphal who is respondent No. 2 in the captioned WP and captioned MC thereat. [3] In and vide said complaint, respondent No. 2 alleged unethical professional conduct qua writ petitioner primarily on the ground that writ petitioner who was a former Additional Advocate General of State of Manipur and presently a State Special Counsel is appearing in cases in the High Court of Manipur on behalf of Manipur Lokayukta, in cases which are filed against the State Government. The afore-referred said complaint was received by respondent No. 1 (Bar Council of Manipur) which shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘BCM’ for convenience, on the next date, i.e., 23.07.2025. Acting on the said complaint, BCM made a ‘resolution dated 26.07.2025’ (‘1st impugned resolution) inter alia resolving to show cause writ petitioner, pursuant to which a ‘Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2025’ (‘1st impugned SCN’ for convenience) was issued, this was followed by another resolution of BCM being ‘Resolution dated 30.08.2025’ (‘2nd impugned resolution’ for convenience) inter alia resolving to request writ petitioner to not to appear as counsel for Lokayukta (to be noted, this is Agenda No. 3 in this resolution). Pursuant to the second impugned resolution, another ‘Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2025’ (2nd impugned SCN for convenience) was issued inter alia calling upon writ petitioner to rethink qua appearing for Lokayukta and also calling upon writ petitioner to choose between resigning from membership of Bar Council of Manipur or resigning from the office of Senior Advisor of the High Court Bar Association, Manipur. [4] Assailing the afore-referred complaint, 1st and 2nd impugned Resolutions of BCM, 1st and 2nd impugned SCNs, captioned WP has been filed. [5] In his campaign against the afore-referred complaint, resolutions, SCNs, writ petitioner made the following points: (a) The 1st and 2nd impugned Show Cause Notices are not traceable to any power either under ‘the Advocates Act, 1961’ (‘said Act’ for convenience) or the Rules made thereunder being ‘the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975’ (‘said Rule’ for convenience). (b) Respondent No. 2 (complainant) does not have locus as he has neither appeared for counsel representing him nor is there any other form of privity between the complainant and writ petitioner. (c) The language in which the impugned 1st and 2nd SCNs are couched, come across as SCNs which have pre-judged the issue as it call upon writ petitioner to make an option rather than explain/show cause. (d) The Membership of respondent No. 1 (BCM) is by way of election, writ petitioner is an electee and an elected member of the Bar Council cannot be dislodged by disciplinary proceedings inter alia under Section 35 of the said Act. [6] Prima facie case for issue of notice made out. [7] Issue notice [8] Ms. S. Nikita, learned counsel, accepts notice for respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. Biswajit, learned senior counsel, appears on her behalf. As regards respondent No. 2, let notice returnable in four weeks, i.e., returnable by 26.11.2025 be issued. Private notice permitted. [9] Mr. S. Biswajit, learned senior counsel, on instructions submitted that learned counsel on record requires time to ascertain the provision of law to which the SCN is traceable. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 requested time to get instructions on other aspects of the matter also. [10] Be that as it may, as regards captioned MC, from the trajectory the matter has taken, it is clear that if the proceedings continue, it can lead to irreversible legal injury. This tilts balance of convenience in favour of grant of interim order sought for. Interim order sought for in the captioned MC is as follows: ‘PRAYER It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an Order staying all further proceeding before the Respondent no.1/Bar Council of Manipur arising out of the Complaint dated 22.07.2025 filed by the Respondent no.2 against the Petitioner-Advocate, including all consequential Impugned Misc. Resolution no.2 dated 26.07.2025, Impugned Resolution no.1 and 3 dated 30.08.2025, Impugned Notice dated 23.09.2025 of the Respondent no.1/ Bar Council of Manipur, during the pendency of the present writ proceeding, for meeting the ends of justice.’ [11] As prima facie case has been made out balance of convenience is in favour of grant of interim order and as there is possibility of irreparable legal injury, there shall be an order of interim stay as prayed for till the next listing which will be on 26.11.2025. [12] In the interregnum, it is open to respondent No. 1 to file an affidavit-in-opposition and bring it on board, if so advised and if so desired. [13] List on 26.11.2025.’ [5] Contempt petitioner, adverting to paragraph Nos. 10 & 11 of afore-referred order submits that an interim order was granted but when the interim order was operating, in breach of the interim order, BCM in its meeting on 22.11.2025 made resolutions inter alia pertaining to the resolutions which are under challenge in WP as well as with regard to further action pertaining to complaint dated 22.07.2025 from Mr. Thongbam Mahipal Singh which has been described in 29.10.2025 order as epicenter. Contempt petitioner, adverting to affidavits of BCM being affidavits dated 13.02.2026 & 30.03.2026 in WP, submitted that BCM has filed affidavits in this Court clearly confirming the resolution made on 22.11.2025 inter alia regarding further action qua 22.07.2025 complaint (epicenter) and therefore it is a case of contempt/breach of 29.10.2025 order of this Court. Contempt petitioner went on to submit that even on a demurer, even if the resolutions are seen as a roll back, there is a clear resolution about further proceedings to take forward the complaint dated 22.07.2025 whereas all further proceedings inter alia further proceedings pursuant to complaint dated 22.07.2025 (epicenter) have been stayed by this Court. [6] It was also pointed out that the 29.10.2025 order had thereafter been extended until further orders as both respondents in the WP had entered appearance through counsel and complainant (R2) has sought time to file affidavit in opposition. Though the contempt petition says that the order has been made absolute, contempt petitioner fairly submits that the interim order has not been made absolute but has been extended until further orders. [7] Mr. W. Sanatomba, learned counsel who has filed Vakalatnama for Bar Council of Manipur (respondent No. 1 in the WP) is before this Court as WP and MC thereat are also listed today. This Court gave the option to learned counsel Mr. W. Sanatomba to accept notice in this contempt petition also and file a suitable affidavit in the contempt petition but learned counsel submitted that he does not have instructions from the respondents to accept notice and to be noted this is in spite of multiple earlier listings where such option was given to learned counsel. This Court also examined the possibility of mediation in the main WP and the MC thereat but Section 6 of the Mediation Act, 2023 (32 of 2023) and serial No. 4 of the First Schedule thereat appears to come in the way as the case at hand may well fall under the category of disputes/matters not fit for mediation as it is a case of complaint before a statutory authority pertaining to practitioner/registered professional. To be noted, this Court is acutely conscious that Mediation Act, 2023 is a conditional legislation, it consists of 65 Sections, it is dated 14.09.2023, it was published in the Official Gazette on 15.09.2023 but only 21 out of the 65 Sections (excluding Section 6) kicked in (came into force) on 09.10.2023 vide Notification being S.O. 4384(E). To put it differently, Section 6 and obviously the First Schedule have not come into force but it has categorized complaints to a regulatory body against a registered professional as a dispute/matter not fit for mediation. [8] In the light of the narrative thus far, as 22.11.2025 resolution clearly talks about deliberation qua 22.07.2025 complaint and authorizing the Secretary of the Bar Council of Manipur to verify veracity of the documents submitted by the complainant and collect relevant judicial orders, prima facie view is 22.07.2025 complaint is being proceeded with, on the teeth of 29.10.2025 interim order which is operating. As contempt petitioner has made out a prima facie case for issue of notice, this Court has no option other than writing that prima facie case for issue of notice to respondents has been made out and issue notice. [9] Issue notice to respondents, returnable by 03.06.2026. [10] Dasti notice is permitted. [11] List on 03.06.2026. CHIEF JUSTICE Indrajeet’ [2] Today, in the hearing, Mr. Rarry Mangsatabam, contempt petitioner appearing party-in-person is before this physical Court. Page 6 of 12 [3] As regards the respondents, all 9 (nine) respondents have been served, ‘respondent Nos. 1 to 3’ (‘R1 to R3’ for the sake of convenience) and ‘respondent Nos. 5 to 9’ (‘R5 to R9’ for the sake of convenience) are present in Court (physical Court). To be noted, with the exception of R1, all other respondents are learned senior members/members of this Bar and they are present before this Court (physical Court). As regards R4, this Court is informed that he is travelling (not in station) and Mr. W. Sanatomba, learned counsel is representing him also and further to be noted, Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei, learned senior counsel is appearing on behalf of Mr. W. Sanatomba. To be noted, R1 to R3 and R5 to R9 are represented by Mr. W. Sanatomba, learned counsel, and Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei, learned counsel appears on his behalf. This means that all 9 (nine) respondents {8 (eight) of whom are present in this Court (physical Court)} as well as R4 are represented by counsel who in turn is led by a learned senior counsel. [4] Adverting to earlier proceedings dated 25.05.2026, Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei, learned senior counsel, on instructions from Mr. W. Sanatomba as well as the respondents who are present in Court (who also represent R4) submitted that proceedings of ‘BCM’ (‘Bar Council of Manipur’) made on 8th March, 2026 could not be brought to the notice of this Court in the last listing owing to want of instructions and lapse in communication. Today, learned senior counsel has placed before this Court the proceedings of BCM dated 08.03.2026 and scanned reproduction of the same is as follows : [5] Adverting to afore-referred proceedings, learned senior counsel submitted that Agenda No. 3 is of relevance to the captioned contempt case and drew the attention of this Court to the Resolution on the same i.e., Resolution No. 3. Furthering his submissions in this direction, on instructions, learned senior counsel submitted the following : i) Afore-referred Resolution No. 3 of Agenda No. 3 continues to operate and will continue to operate i.e., BCM would await verdict of this Court in WP(C) No. 802 of 2025 and MCs thereat. Page 12 of 12 ii) Afore-referred 08.03.2026 Resolution as regards Agenda No.3 supersedes all other Resolutions of BCM pertaining to Agenda No. 3 and any matter pertaining to subject matter of WP(C)No.802 of 2025. This submission is recorded. iii) Aforementioned Agenda No. 3 and/or any other issue touching upon subject matter of WP(C) No. 802 of 2025 will not be tabled until Verdict is returned by this Court in WP(C) No. 802 of 2025 and MCs thereat. [6] If only the afore-referred Resolution dated 08.03.2026 had been brought to the notice of this Court, this Court would have been saved of the unpleasant task of issuing notice to respondents in the captioned contempt case. On this note, recording the stated position of the respondents, captioned contempt case is given a closure by writing that the same is disposed of as closed discharging all respondents from contempt case. There shall be no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE FR/NFR Sushil P.S. I : Upload forthwith P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in High Court website inter-alia as the same is QR coded.