Division Bench dismissed PILs as misconceived modification suits that were actually reviews, declining to correct earlier orders while preserving the right to file proper review petitions.
Answering no, dismissing the applications as misconceived modification suits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
KABORA Digitally signed by MBAM KABORAMBAM SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH Date: 2021.11.23 SINGH 14:54:41 +05'30'
Item No. 17, 18 (Through Video Conferencing)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
MC (PIL) NO. 1 OF 2020 WITH MC (PIL) NO. 2 OF 2020
Sapna Khaidem
... Applicant
-Versus-
State of Manipur and others
... Respondents
BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN
23.11.2021.
(Sanjay Kumar, CJ)
Both these applications were purportedly filed for modification of the orders dated 05/02/2020 and 12/02/2020 passed by the earlier Division Bench in PIL No.60 of 2018. However, we are of the opinion that what is actually sought is review of those orders and not mere modification, by way of corrections.
The applications are therefore misconceived and are accordingly dismissed on this short ground. This order shall however not preclude the applicants from filing proper petitions for review, if warranted, in accordance with due procedure.
A copy of this order shall be supplied online or through whatsapp to the learned counsel.
JUDGE
CHIEF JUSTICE
bidya
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application seeking modification of orders is a review in disguise.
Whether the court can dismiss modifications as mischaracterised reviews.
Sapna Khaidem
State of Manipur
Sanjay Kumar
M V Muralidaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
