Item no. 3 & 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL WP(C) No. 597 of 2026 with MC(WP(C)) No. 624 of 2026 The Shining Women Welfare Organisation …. Petitioner - Versus – State of Manipur and 2 Ors. …. Respondents B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA ORDER 14.08.2026 [1] Present Mr. Ng. Jotindra Luwang, learned counsel along with Ms. W. Geetarani, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S. Chittaranjan, learned Addl. AG assisted by Mr. A. Priyokumar Sharma, learned counsel on behalf of the State respondent; and Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Y. Nikhil, learned counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3 (Imphal Municipal Corporation). [2] The petitioner, who is a registered organization of street vendors submitted a representation dated 22.07.2026 to the Mayor of Imphal Municipal Corporation (IMC) requesting them to allow construction of temporary market sheds in the area of Imphal market. It is submitted that the representation is still pending. The only substantive prayer made in the prayer is for a direction to the IMC to consider and dispose of the representation dated 22.07.2026 by a speaking order within a stipulated time and writ petition may be disposed of at this stage by issuing innocuous order. [3] Mr. S. Chittaranjan, learned Addl. AG submits that the prayer is against the IMC and the State has no role. Oinam Thoib a Meitei Digitally signed by Oinam Thoiba Meitei Date: 2026.08.17 11:46:13 +05'30' [4] Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned sr. counsel submits that writ petition may be disposed of by giving some time to the IMC for considering the representation submitted by the petitioner’s association. [5] Recording the submissions made at the bar, WP(C) No. 597 of 2026 is disposed of at this stage by directing the respondent nos. 2 & 3 (IMC) to consider and pass an appropriate order to the representation dated 22.07.2026 submitted by the petitioner as per law, within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. [6] MC(WP(C)) No. 624 of 2026 is also disposed of, accordingly. [7] It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the merit of the case. JUDGE Thoiba