SEKHOGIN SITHLOU & 6 ORS. Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter is taken up today, I heard Mr. M. Devananda, Ld. counsel for the petitioners/applicants and Mr. M. Rarry, Ld. Addl. AG for the Government respondent.

(2.) This application in MC W.P.(C). No.181 of 2020 has been filed to implead the private respondents as Respondent Nos.130 to 177 in the main writ petition in W.P.(C) No.921 of 2016 on the ground that at the time of filing the writ petition by over sight, they were not impleaded as party respondents in the writ petition.

(3.) Now, they came to know that these 48 persons are also necessary parties to be impleaded as party respondents in the writ proceedings. Therefore, they filed this Misc.Application in MC W.P.(C). No.181 of 2020 for impleading them as party respondents in the writ proceedings. On the other hand, Mr. Kh. Tomba on behalf of Mr. Tarunkumar, Ld. counsel for the respondents has made no objection whereas Mr. M. Rarry, Ld. Addl. AG for the Government respondent is objecting that there is no reason given for impleading these 48 persons as party respondents in the writ petition. He also further represented that though other private respondents are already impleaded as party respondents in the writ proceedings and the writ petition has been filed in the year 2016, but this Misc.Application in MC W.P.(C). No.181 of 2020 has been filed in the year 2020 only for the reason to drag the proceedings. Therefore, he is strongly objecting for impleading these 48 persons as party respondents in the writ proceedings.