IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a court is bound by a previous judicial order passed by a Division Bench and cannot exercise the power to refer a case to the Division Bench if it conflicts with the previous order.

JUDGMENT

1. The present application has been filed by the above named applicant with a prayer for directing the registry of this High Court to list the connected writ petition i.e., WP(C) No. 161 of 2022 before the Hon'ble Chief Justice on the administrative side for placing the matter before a larger bench of this High Court.

Heard Mr. M. Rarry, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate General, Manipur appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 9 and 10. None of the other remaining respondents appeared before this court despite service of notice upon them.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, High Court of State of Telangana at Hyderabad and other High Courts in the country incorporated in their respective High Court rules that a Division Bench will hear matters challenging the order passed by the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta but while framing the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019, it has inadvertently not mentioned the manner in which a petition challenging the order passed by the Manipur Lokayukta is to be heard. However, under Rule 3(1)(d) of Chapter IV-A of the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019, it is provided that an application shall be heard by a Division Bench if a Single Judge refer such application to the Chief Justice for placing it before a Division Bench having regard to the importance or complexity of the case. For ready reference, the provisions of the aforesaid Rule 3(1) of Chapter IV-A of the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019 are reproduced hereunder:-

'3(1) Every such application shall be made and heard before the Single Bench except where the Chief Justice otherwise directs:

Provided that such application falling within any one or more of the following categories shall be heard by a Division Bench except where the Chief Justice otherwise directs:

(a) Public Interest Litigation;

(b) Habeas Corpus Application;

(c) Application relating to externment or deportation;

(d) Any application which a Single Judge may refer to the Chief Justice for placing it before the Division Bench having regard to the importance or complexity of the case.

(e) Writ petition in which constitutional validity of any Act, Rules or any provisions thereof have been challenged.'

3. The learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that in an earlier round of litigation between the same parties and in respect of the same complaint case which was pending before the Manipur Lokayukta, a writ petition being WP(C) No. 899 of 2021 was filed by the present writ petitioners before this court for quashing the order dated 19-11-2021 and other connected orders of the Manipur Lokayukta and that while taking up the said writ petition and on the submission made by the counsel appearing for the parties for placing the matter before the larger bench, the learned Single Judge passed an order on 13-12-2021 in the aforesaid writ petition directing the registry of this court to list the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice on administrative side for appropriate order and thereafter, the Hon'ble Chief Justice directed the registry for listing the said writ petition before the Division Bench and the said writ petition was heard by a Division Bench and dismissed the same on merit on 20-12-2021.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant also submitted that all the writ petitions being WP(C) No. 75 of 2022, WP(C) No. 616 of 2022, WP(C) No. 168 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 171 of 2022, which have been filed assailing the order dated 07-02-2022 passed by the Manipur Lokayukta, were all placed before the Division Bench of this court and in fact WP(C) No. 75 of 2022 is still pending for consideration and disposal by a Division Bench of this court.

In view of the above, Mr. M. Rarry, submitted that it will be jus