SOREISO YANGYA vs STATE OF MANIPUR AND 3 ORS
- Court
- Manipur High Court
Supple. Sl. No. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
2026:MNHC:206-DB
AT IMPHAL
PIL No. 16 of 2026
Shri. Soreiso Yangya, aged about 44, S/o Shri. Vangam
Yangya, resident of Phungcham Village, P.O. & P.S. Ukhrul,
Ukhrul District, Manipur.
Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Manipur represented by its Chief Secretary,
Government of Manipur, New Secretariat, South Block,
Mantripukhri Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Mini Secretariat South Block,
P.O. & P.S. Ukhrul, Ukhrul District, Manipur – 795142.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chingai Block, P.O. & P.S.
Chingai, Ukhrul District, Manipur-795142.
4. The Sub - Divisional Officer, Jessami Block, P.O. & P.S.
Jessami, Ukhrul District, Manipur-795142.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For petitioner Mr. Mark Khapai, Advocate
Mr. S. Chittaranjan, Additional Advocate
General, Manipur along with
Mr. A. Priyokumar Sharma, Advocate
For respondents
Date of Order 12.09.2026
Page 1 of 7
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(Oral)
(M. Sundar, CJ)
[1] The following abbreviations/short forms have been used in this
order (for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity):
Sl.
No.
Abbreviation/Short
Full Form/Expansion
Form/other short
references
1. WP Writ Petition
2. PIL Public Interest Litigation
3. WRRDCU Western Raphei Road
Development Committee - Ukhrul,
Chingai Block, Ukhrul District,
Manipur - 795142
4. said representation Representation dated 27.07.2026
sent by WRRDCU, signed by writ
petitioner, Soreiso Yangya in his
capacity as Chairman of WRRDCU
5. RCC Reinforced Cement Concrete
[2] Captioned WP has been filed as a PIL in this Court on 11.09.2026
espousing public interest of local populace of Tangkhul and Phoumai villages
in Ukhrul and Senapati Districts respectively in the State of Manipur.
[3] In the hearing today, Mr. Mark Khapai, learned counsel on record
for writ petitioner is before this Court.
[4] This Court is informed that writ petitioner is Chairman of
WRRDCU. Subject matter of PIL is, construction of a RCC bridge across
Chingjaroi River, which this Court is informed is now connected to access road
to reach National Highway qua afore-referred two villages by way of a
hanging/suspension bridge.
Page 2 of 7
[5] The issue that has been highlighted by the protagonist of the
captioned PIL is that the hanging/suspension bridge cannot bear the load of
heavy and even mini trucks and therefore, heavy and even mini trucks are
compelled to cross through ground level of said river even during wet seasons
causing hardship and sometimes even loss of lives. Only pedestrian and light
vehicles can ply on the existing hanging/suspension bridge is PIL petitioner’s
say. It is also highlighted that the existing bridge is the only access for the
afore-referred two villages to reach the national highway.
[6] Be that as it may, it is seen from the case file that writ petitioner,
describing himself as Chairman of WRRDCU has sent said representation and
a scanned reproduction of the said representation (as placed before this Court
in the case file) is as follows:
Page 3 of 7
[7] To be noted, said representation is dated 27.07.2026 but while
handwriting the date, the year has been wrongly mentioned as 2027 in first
page is learned petitioner counsel’s say who also expresses regret request
st
handwritten ‘2027’ in 1 page of said representation as ‘2026’. Request
acceded to owing to nature of the matter, facts and circumstances of captioned
PIL.
[8] Though learned counsel for PIL petitioner submits that said
representation has been duly served in the offices of Hon’ble addressee and
other 5 (five) co-addressees to whom copies have been marked, no
Page 4 of 7
acknowledgment has been placed before this Court. Ideally and under normal
circumstances, this Court would insist on production of due acknowledgment
qua Hon’ble addressee and 5 (five) other co-addressees to whom copies have
been marked but considering the nature of the matter, this Court makes a mild
departure and deems it appropriate to construe today (12.09.2026) as the
notional date of receipt of said representation by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Manipur.
[9] Issue notice.
[10] Mr. S. Chittaranjan, learned Additional Advocate General for
State of Manipur along with Mr. A. Priyokumar Sharma, learned State counsel,
accepts notice for all four respondents.
[11] Owing to the nature of the public issue that has been highlighted
and projected, with the consent of learned counsel and learned State counsel
i.e., with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, captioned main WP is
taken up in the admission Board itself dispensing with the routine of filing an
affidavit-in-opposition and this is also because captioned matter is not an
adversarial litigation.
[12] Notwithstanding the expansive prayer in the captioned WP, Mr.
Mark Khapai, learned counsel for petitioner fairly submitted that the PIL
petitioner abridges the prayer for the present and it will suffice if said
representation is disposed of by the Chief Secretary to the Government of
Manipur. This vastly descopes the legal perimeter of the captioned PIL and
this is another reason for taking up the main WP in the admission Board itself
Page 5 of 7
dispensing with the routine of filing affidavit-in-opposition albeit with the
consent of learned counsel on both sides.
[13] Captioned WP is disposed of with a simple direction to the Chief
Secretary, Government of Manipur (to be noted, Respondent No. 1 has been
described as ‘The State of Manipur, represented by its Chief Secretary,
Government of Manipur, New Secretariat, South Block, Mantripukhri Imphal West
District, Manipur – 795001’ and therefore we are not impleading Chief Secretary
separately as respondent) to consider the said representation on its own
merits, in accordance with law and dispose of the same by way of a speaking
proceedings as expeditiously as the official business of the Chief Secretary,
Government of Manipur would permit but in any event within 12 (twelve)
weeks from today, i.e. on or before 05.12.2026. In the interregnum, if the
Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur is of the view that further inputs,
information, documents are required, it is open to the office of the Chief
Secretary to requisition the same from the writ petitioner and writ petitioner
will remain duty bound to respond to the same expeditiously and this exercise
shall be completed within 4 (four) weeks from today (if the need arises) and
the break up shall be a fortnight from today for office of Chief Secretary to
requisition and another fortnight therefrom for writ petitioner to respond.
[14] Disposal of the afore-referred said representation by way of
speaking proceedings by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur on or
before 05.12.2026 such speaking proceedings shall be served on the writ
petitioner or Mr. Mark Khapai, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner
under due acknowledgment within 7 (seven) working days. In the normal
circumstances, on disposal of a case, the vakalatnama gets extinguished,
Page 6 of 7
nonetheless in this case, at the request of and with the consent of Mr. Mark
Khapai, learned counsel for petitioner, a mild departure is made and we write
with the consent of learned counsel for PIL petitioner that service of speaking
proceedings on Mr. Mark Khapai will suffice without insisting on service on writ
petitioner and/or WRRDCU.
[15] As regards the speaking proceedings disposing of the said
representation (on its own merits and in accordance with law) if the writ
petitioner, WRRDCU or any other person/entity is either not satisfied or is
aggrieved, it is open to such person/entity concerned with the matter to come
to this Court again with a suitable petition and/or approach any other Fora. If
such a scenario unfurls, such legal proceedings will be considered on its own
merits and in accordance with law untrammeled by instant order and in this
regard, rights and contentions of all parties shall stand preserved.
[16] Captioned PIL/WP is disposed of as closed in the aforesaid
manner albeit with afore-referred directions, observations and preservation of
rights and contentions in the manner set out supra. There shall be no order as
to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Sandeep
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.
KABORAMBA
M SANDEEP
SINGH
Digitally signed by
KABORAMBAM
SANDEEP SINGH
Date: 2026.09.14
16:05:51 +05'30'
Page 7 of 7