KHAIMUANTHANG @ KHAIMUAN Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Khalter Khampa, learned counsel for the respondent and Mr.R.K.Umakanta, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.

(2.) The petitioner in this case is an individual, who claims to be a Convenor of Joint Action Committee, a Committee formed for seeking justice for one Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI),Thangzason Guite. If admittedly the victim, the so called officer, has suffered some injury by the assault by a group of 20 young men, an FIR has been already lodged at Churachandpur Police Station in FIR No.115(09) 2019 CCP-PS u/s 332/353/186/34 IPC dated 01.09.2019, then it is for the officer, namely, Assistant Sub-Inspector(ASI), Thangzason Guite to pursue his rights and proceed in accordance with law.

(3.) In the present case, we do not find any statement by the petitioner as to how he is connected with the Assistant Sub-Inspector(ASI), Thangzason Guite and para No.2 of the affidavit, the petitioner merely says that he is the convenor of the "Joint Action Committee-Justice for ASI Thangzason Guite ". We are afraid that this does not give right to the petitioner to file writ petition Article 226 of the Constitution of India to plead the cause of Assistant Sub-Inspector(ASI), namely, Thangzason Guite. In any event, in respect of the incident which is stated in the petition, when admittedly the FIR has been registered, the consequence has to follow. The question of this Court issuing a writ of mandamus will not arise in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 's decision in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others. The same is as follows:-