Moirangthem Ibema Devi v. Thokchom Khomdonbi Devi

B E F O R E HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN For the appellants : Mr. A. Mohendro, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Paonam, Sr. Advocate; Mr. R.K. Umakanta, GA Date of Order : 06-05-2022 O R D E R Sanjay Kumar (C.J.), [1] By order dated 31-01-2022, a learned Judge of this Court allowed WP(C) Nos. 121 and 132 of 2021. These two writ petitions were filed by the 1st respondent herein, viz., the Pradhan of Bamon Kampu Gram Panchayat, elected for a term of five years, from 2017 to 2022. His prayer in WP(C) No. 121 of 2021 was for a direction to the authorities to allow him to function as the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. In WP(C) No. 132 of 2021, he assailed the letter dated 03-02-2021 issued by the Government of Manipur directing status quo to be maintained in respect of the Up-Pradhan of Bamon Kampu Gram Panchayat, who was assigned the duties of the Pradhan. [2] This situation came to pass owing to the writ petitioner’s involvement in criminal proceedings, including a charge under Section 302 IPC. Admittedly, he was taken into custody and remained incarcerated from 23-04-2019 to 12-02-2020 till he was granted interim bail. The interim bail order was thereafter made absolute on 12-11-2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East. It may be noted that certain ward members of Bamon Kampu Gram Panchayat got themselves impleaded as respondent Nos. 5 WA No. 58 of 2022 to 10 in WP(C) No. 132 of 2021. After hearing all the parties concerned, the learned Judge opined that until he was convicted, the writ petitioner could not be declared tainted, whereby he could not be permitted to continue as the Pradhan of Bamon Kampu Gram Panchayat. The learned Judge accordingly allowed both the writ petitions by way of the common order dated 31-01-2022, invalidating the letter dated 03-02-2021 and directing the authorities to allow the writ petitioner to take charge forthwith as the Pradhan of Bamon Kampu Gram Panchayat and to allow him to function and discharge his duties as such. Aggrieved by the common order, respondent Nos. 5 to 10 in WP(C) No. 132 of 2021, being the ward members of Bamon Kampu Gram Panchayat, filed this writ appeal. [3] Heard Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1, the writ petitioner; and Mr. R.K. Umakanta, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State authorities. [4] Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel, fairly concedes that there is no bar or disqualification contemplated under the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1994’), with regard to a person facing criminal proceedings continuing as a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. He would state that such provisions are found in like enactments of other States but the Act of 1994 is sadly lacking on that score. [5] It may be noted that Section 101 of the Act of 1994 stipulates the grounds on which a person would be held to be disqualified for being chosen and for being a member of a Gram Panchayat or a Zilla Parishad. Significantly, this provision does not contemplate mere pendency of criminal proceedings to be a disqualification. Further, as rightly held by the learned Judge, unless there is a conviction, a person charged with a criminal offence cannot be declared tainted or liable to disqualification, unless specifically WA No. 58 of 2022 provided for. Article 243F of the Constitution deals with disqualifications for membership in a Panchayat and provides that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of a Panchayat if he is disqualified under any law pertaining to elections to the legislature of the State concerned or if he is disqualified under any law made by the State legislature. Therefore, it would be within the domain of each State to spell out the disqualifications in relation to membership of a Gram Panchayat within that State. It may also be noted that local self-government or village administration falls in Entry No. 5 of the State List (List II) in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Therefore, it would not be permissible to import into the State of Manipur provisions in similar enactments operating in other States, when the Act of 1994 is silent on a particular aspect. The arguments of Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel, are therefore rejected. [6] Be it noted that Section 30 of the Act of 1994 provides the procedure for moving a ‘No Confidence Motion’ against a Pradhan and Up-Pradhan. If the appellants, being the ward members of Bamon Kampu Gram Panchayat, have any grievance with regard to the continuation of respondent No. 1 herein as the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, it would be open to them to take recourse to this remedy as per due procedure. Without doing so, they cannot seek to raise a ground of disqualification, which is not contemplated by law in the State of Manipur, to bar respondent No. 1 from holding the post of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and acting as such. [7] The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Victoria WA No. 58 of 2022