JUDGMENT Sanjay Kumar, CJ. - Heard Mr. M. Gunedhor and Mr. Ch. Victor, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner; and Mr. R.K. Umakanta, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was taken up suo motu on the strength of the letter petition received from one Henkhokhai Singsit. The issue raised by him was that a minor named Seigoulun Singsit, son of late Paokhomang Singsit of District Kangpokpi, was arrested on 24-10-2021 and FIR No. 29(10)2021 PSI-PS was registered against him under Sections 18 & 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 25 (1-C) of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. The core issue raised by him was the alleged minority status of the accused. The writ petition was taken on file by arraying the State of Manipur, represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur; the Superintendent of Police, Imphal West, Manipur; the Superintendent of Police, Imphal East, Manipur; the Officer-in-charge, Patsoi P.S., Imphal West District, Manipur; and the Office-in-charge, Thoubal Dam P.S., Imphal East, Manipur, as the respondents. 4. When the matter was taken up for hearing for the first time on 15-11-2021, Mr. M. Gunedhor and Mr. Ch. Victor, learned counsel, informed the Court that they were instructed to appear for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Umakanta, learned PP, took notice for the respondents and sought time. He thereafter filed affidavit dated 13-12-2021 raising the issue of maintainability of this case by Henkhokhai Singsit on the ground that he was a total stranger to the accused and pointing out that neither the accused nor his guardian had approached the Court raising any issue. In his rejoinder to the aforestated affidavit, Henkhokhai Singsit claimed that he was a Social Worker as well as a relative and, therefore, he has the locus to initiate the present case inasmuch 'as the parent/guardian of the minor accused was prevented from collecting proper information while he was in police custody and could not challenge or move a remand objection/bail application'. It is relevant to note that in his letter dated 8-11-2021, which formed the foundation for this case, Henkhokhai Singsit merely stated that he was a Social Worker and did not claim that he was related to the accused, viz. Seigoulun Singsit. Further, he admitted in his rejoinder to the affidavit of respondent No. 3 that he was not the guardian of the accused, allegedly a minor. Seigoulun Singsit. Further, he admitted in his rejoinder to the affidavit of respondent No. 3 that he was not the guardian of the accused, allegedly a minor. He claimed that the actual guardian was under some handicap insofar as collection of material was concerned. 5. These admissions cast a different light altogether on this writ petition. 6. This Court would be liberal in allowing any person who is disabled from approaching this Court to ventilate his/her own grievance, be it for whatever reason, to be represented by another individual, bonafide espousing such cause, by acting as a 'next friend'. However, it is not open to someone completely unconnected to the aggrieved person to assume the status of a 'next friend' when such aggrieved person can either approach the Court on his own or can do so through his guardian or near relations. Such a person would not be a 'next friend' but would be an interfering interloper. 7. In the case on hand, the admission of the petitioner that he is not the guardian of the alleged minor accused and the fact that the parent/guardian of the alleged minor accused is very much available, disentitles him from claiming the status of a 'next friend' and espousing the cause of the said alleged minor accused. In effect, the petitioner does not have the locus standi to maintain this case on behalf of the said alleged minor accused. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on this short ground without adjudication on merits. In the circumstances, there should be no order as to costs. A copy of this order shall be supplied online/Whatshap to the learned counsel for the parties.