KONSABA IBOCHOU Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the President of a voluntary organisation engaged in propagation of 'Meeteinism in the Manipur Valley, claims to have explored the real Meetei script which according to him is authentic and was in use until 17th Century A.D. when it came to be eclipsed by emergence and influence of Vaishnavism in Manipur. By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for both a Writ of Certiorari as well as Mandamus seeking to quash Annexure-10 and 11 dated 20.9.96 issued by the State Govt. cancelling the appointment of expert committee, constituted on 19.4.94, and order dated 2.12.96, re-affirming the 27 scripts based on recommendations of the Expert Committee meeting held on 10.10.96 Annexure-15. A direction is also prayed for, directing the respondents to hold a fresh meeting to consider and examine the correct Meetei script by associating two experts on the subject from outside Manipur allowing the earlier committee as constituted on 19.4.96 vide Annexure-1/6. This in short is the petitioner's case and it empty reveals the nature of the petitioner itself. This petition was filed on 18.12.96. A learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 27.1.97 called upon the State Govt. to file a statement. The subsequent order sheets show that in the mean time Miscellaneous cases 2I 97, 41/97 were also filed by parties seeking intervention, which were allowed.

(2.) Significantly enough it is not only this petition but also Civil Rule No. 301/97 which by order dated 30.4.97 passed by another learned Single Judge Ghosh, J. were directed to be listed before Division Bench for the following reasons.

(3.) This is how it has come to be listed before Division Bench. Apart from being a matter of policy, too evidently the matter is highly technical, calling for a high degree of expertise in a particular language and its script and the Court does not possess such an expertise and specialised in-depth knowledge of Manipuri history, its language and script, and even if someone were to claim such a specialised knowledge, the question that still looms large is, whether such a matter falls within the purview of Writ jurisdiction of this Court ?