Sl. No. 14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC(PIL) No. 6 of 2026 Ref:- PIL No. 30 of 2025 1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Secretary, (PHED), Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001. 2. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department (PHED), Government of Manipur, Khoyathong, P.O. Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Senapati District, PO & P.S. Senapati, Senapati District, Manipur – 795106. 4. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department (PHED), Government of Manipur, Senapati Division, P.O. & P.S. Senapati, Senapati District, Manipur – 795106. ……Applicants Vs. 1. Mr. RK Paul, aged about 48 years, S/o Karang John, a resident of Oklong Maryram Village, P.O. & P.S. Senapati, Senapati District, Manipur -795106. ….. Respondent 2. The Union of India through the Secretary (DWS), Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of Water and Sanitation, Government of India, C Wing, 4th Floor, Pandit Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003. 3. The Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), Government of India, Satarkta Bhavan, Block-A, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi – 110023. ….. Proforma Respondents SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2026.03.12 20:10:18 +05'30' BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH For the Applicants :: Mr. Lenin Hijam, Advocate General, Manipur; Ms. Thanyomi Keishing, Junior Advocate to Advocate General, Manipur. For the Respondents :: Mr. M. Rakesh, Advocate for respondent No. 1; Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, CGC (Central Government Counsel) for respondent No. 2. Date of Hearing :: 12.03.2026 Date of Judgment & Order :: 12.03.2026 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) (M. Sundar, CJ) [1] Captioned ‘Miscellaneous Case’ (‘MC’ for the sake of brevity) has been filed with a prayer seeking extension of time qua order dated 20.11.2025 by which a ‘Public Interest Litigation’(‘PIL’ for the sake of brevity) being PIL No. 30 of 2025 was disposed of. [2] Learned State Counsel Ms. Thanyomi Keishing for the petitioner led by learned Advocate General Mr. Lenin Hijam and Mr. M. Rakesh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 are before this Court. Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, CGC (Central Government Counsel) represents respondent No. 2. [3] Afore-referred order dated 20.11.2025 in PIL No. 30 of 2025 reads as follows : ‘20.11.2025 [1] Captioned ‘Public Interest Litigation’ (‘PIL’ for the sake of brevity) has been filed raising concerns about implementation of Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) and NDB financed rural water supply projects in Senapati District, Manipur. To be noted, this Court is informed that ‘NDP’ is an abbreviation and it denotes ‘New Development Bank’. [2] Mr. M. Rakesh, learned counsel for PIL petitioner, adverting to the case file, submits that the writ petitioner has sent multiple representations, the last representation is dated 06.10.2025, articulating his concerns qua implementation of afore- referred JJM which is a NBD financed water supply project. To be noted, the crux and gravamen of the PIL petitioner’s concern is that the project has actually not been completed and the villagers in Senapati District are still struggling for water. The project which is said to have been completed has failed to deliver intended results is learned PIL petitioner counsel’s say. [3] Issue notice to respondents 1 to 5. [4] Ms. Thanyomi Keishing, learned State counsel, accepts notice for R1 to R4 and Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, learned Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) accepts notice for R5 (to be noted, ‘R1 to R4’ and ‘R5’ denote ‘respondents 1 to 4’ and ‘respondent 5’ respectively). [5] Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate General for State of Manipur and senior advocate appears on behalf of Ms. Thanyomi Keishing, learned State counsel who accepted notice for R1 to R4. [6] Learned Advocate General, on instructions, submits that the afore-referred 06.10.2025 representation of the PIL petitioner would be looked into inter alia by making spot inspections and the same will be addressed if there is a need to do so. [7] As regards R5, learned counsel for R5 submitted that R5 would extend support and coordinate the exercise with the State Government in looking into the afore-referred 06.10.2025 representation of PIL petitioner. Page 4 of 8 [8] In the aforesaid scenario, learned counsel for PIL petitioner very fairly submitted that he abridges the prayer (for the present) and restricts it to disposal of afore-referred 06.10.2025 representation. [9] In the light of the afore-referred scenario that unfurled in the hearing, PIL petitioner counsel also agreed to give up R6 in the instant PIL petition. R6 is given up. [10] Main PIL petition is taken up with the consent of learned counsel for PIL petitioner, learned State counsel for R1 to R4 (led by learned Advocate General) and learned CGSC in the admission board itself without insisting on filing affidavits-in- opposition. [11] In the light of the abridged prayer, this Court deems it appropriate to put in a scanned reproduction of the afore-referred 06.10.2025 and the same is as follows : [12] As would be evident from the afore-referred representation, it is addressed to R5 but in the light of the abridged prayer and the fair stand of learned State Counsel, the aforesaid representation shall now be considered on its own merits in accordance with law (inter alia by making a spot visit/inspection) by the Secretary to the Government of Manipur, PHED (Public Health Engineering Department), a response shall be drawn up and the same shall be served on the writ petitioner as expeditiously as the business of R1 permits but in any event, within 12 (twelve) weeks from today i.e., on or before 12.03.2026. To be noted, as already alluded to supra, this exercise shall be done in coordination and consultation with R5 and if necessary, an official from R5 will also participate in the inspection and the exercise of considering the representation. [13] On the representation being disposed of in the aforesaid manner, if PIL petitioner is not satisfied, it is open to the PIL petitioner to come back to this Court seeking suitable remedy. In this regard, all questions are left open and it is made clear that all rights and contentions of PIL petitioner and/or anyone else concerned for the subject matter stand preserved for this purpose. In this context, it is also made clear that no opinion or view on merits of the matter has been expressed in the instant case. [14] Captioned PIL disposed of in the aforesaid manner. [15] There shall be no order as to costs.’ [4] Learned Advocate General submits that the representation of the writ petitioner is under active consideration of State but some more time is required as data collection from various points of inputs has been delayed a little owing to circumstances beyond the control of State. [5] On the side of respondents, the PIL petitioner represented by Mr. M. Rakesh submits that it is desirable that the exercise is completed at the earliest. [6] In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to extend the time as sought for but by 8 (eight) weeks instead of 3 (three) months/90 (ninety) days that has been sought. This means that our order dated 20.11.2025 in PIL No. 30 of 2025 will remain unchanged with the sole exception of the timeline vide paragraph 12. To put it differently, in paragraph 12 of the order granted earlier i.e., ‘on or before 12.03.2026’ will now read as ‘on or before 07.05.2026’ and all other aspects of our order dated 20.11.2025 in PIL No. 30 of 2025 will remain unchanged. [7] Captioned MC disposed of in the aforesaid manner. [8] There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE 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.