High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 07 MAN CK 0048

Nongthombam Beikul Singh vs Thoudam Indrakumar Singh & Ors.

Manipur High Court · Decided on 18 July 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ahanthem Bimol Singh, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Case (Revision Petition (CRP Art. 227)) No. 32 Of 2024 (Ref:- Revision Petition (CRP Art. 227 No. 8 Of 2024) & Miscellaneous Case (Revision Petition (CRP Art. 227)) No. 33 Of 2024, (Ref:- Miscellaneous Case (Revision Petition (CRP Art. 227)) No. 15 Of 2024 & Revision Petition (CRP Art. 227 No. 8 Of 2024)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 324 words

Ahanthem Bimol Singh, J

Heard Mr. A. Viscount, learned counsel appearing for the applicant; Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel assisted by Syed Murtaza Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents No. 1 and 2 (petitioner in the connected Review Petition) and Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, learned GA appearing for the respondent No. 3.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the mutation order impugned in the connected revision petition was passed by the present applicant while he was acting as an SDO, Wangoi and at present, he has retired from service. The learned counsel further submitted that while challenging the said mutation order passed by the present applicant in his official capacity, there is no requirement in law for impleading the present applicant in his individual capacity and that impleadment of the present SDC, who is holding the office of the SDO, Wangoi, is only necessary. The learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that since the present applicant is not a necessary party, his name may be deleted from the array of parties in the connected revision petition.

Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents No. 1 and 2 fairly submitted that he has no objection in allowing the present application filed by the applicant.

Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, learned GA appearing for the respondent No. 3 also endorsed the submission made by the counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2.

After hearing the submission advanced by the counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, this court is of the considered view that the impleadment of the present applicant as one of the respondents in the connected revision petition is not at all necessary as he is neither proper nor a necessary party.

Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

Registry is directed to delete the name of the present applicant from the array of parties in the connected revision petition.