CELINE DZUVICHU Vs. APRALE KIRHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents in both the appeals. Also heard Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Imti Longjem, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, 16-27, 29-36, 38-40, 42, 44, 45, 47, 50-54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 62-65, 67, 68, 70 and 71 in Writ Appeal No. 17/2017 and for respondent nos. 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, 16-27, 29-36, 38-40, 42, 44, 45, 47, 50-54, 56, 58-60, 62-65, 67, 68, 70-72, 76, 92, 96, 99, 103, 118, 121, 122, 132, 139, 141-143, 148, 157, 159, 166, 167, 169, 187, 193, 202-204, 208, 211, 220, 221, 227, 232, 235, 238, 242, 244, 245, 250, 256, 264, 266 and 268 in Writ Appeal No. 16/2017.

(2.) Both these intra-court appeals are preferred against the common judgment and order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in two writ petitions, W.P.(C) No. 214(K)/2015 and W.P.(C) No. 34(K)/2016. The learned Single Judge by his common judgment while allowing the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 214(K)/2015, had, consequently, dismissed the other writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 34(K)/2016. While Writ Appeal No. 16/2017 is preferred against the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 34(K)/2016, Writ Appeal No. 17/2017 is directed against the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 214(K)/2015.

(3.) The writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 214(K)/2015, was preferred by the present respondents in Writ Appeal No. 17/2017, wherein, the present appellants were impleaded as party-respondents. On the other hand, the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 34(K)/2016, was preferred by the present appellants as the writ petitioners impleading the present respondents in Writ Appeal No. 16/2017 as party-respondents. By orders, both dated 4.12.2018, passed in these two appeals this Court had held the service of notice on all the respondents to be sufficient.