1. The introduction of Mn into AIIBVI structures should lead to isomorphic substitution with the formation of a “good” solid solution (See for example Chen, W. et al. J. Chem. Phys. 123, 12, 124707, Ref. [11] of current paper), therefore, it is not clear why the authors consider Mn as an n-type impurity. The fact that the authors do not observe the Mn2+ intracenter luminescence near 2 eV (Ref. [11]), evidence that there was no isomorphic cation substitution in their experiment . The luminescence peak at 3.14 eV (395 nm), which the authors associate with manganese ions, should be considered as related to the impurity or defects. An analysis of the experimental data does not allow to establish correlations of the measured values with the manganese concentration in the samples. Thus, a sample with 20% Mn has the narrowest band gap with respect to the samples with 10 and 30% Mn (?), and its conductivity is lowest and close to the undoped sample. All of the above suggests that the effects observed by the authors are not due to the introduction of manganese into the ZnTe matrix, but due to the problems in the sample fabrication. 2. The experiment temperature is not indicated, and only from ZnTe Eg value it becomes clear that the experiment was carried out at room temperature. 3. Page 5, line 6. ɛ is permittivity as 8.865·10–12 F/m (&), two values ɛ0 and ɛ are used in the formula. Vacuum permittivity ɛ0=8.854·10–12 F/m, and ZnTe permittivity is about 10 arb. units. Which epsilon value authors do mean? 4. Page 5, line 7. Electron effective mass in ZnTe should be about 0.11m0, see for example Neumann et al. Phys. Rev. B 37, p. 992 5. References section. Ref [12] reference is not correct. 6. References section. Ref [21] Journal title is not correct : correct title is Indian Journal of Pure & Applied Physics