KABORA MBAM SANDEE P SINGH v. M/s. Morung & Sons

1. Shri Oinam Nabakishore Singh, Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur.

2. Shri M. Lokendro Singh, Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Manipur.

3. Shri Suresh Babu, Addl. Chief Secretary (Finance), Government of Manipur.

4. Mr. Valte, Executive Engineer, Sadar Hills Division, PWD, Manipur. Petitioner Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN For the appellants in both the appeals and the respondents in the contempt case. : Mr. N. Ibotombi, Sr. Advocate For the respondent in both the appeals and the petitioner in the contempt case : Mr. M. Devananda, Advocate Date of Order : 02.08.2022 W.A. No. 57 of 2016; & Ors. Sanjay Kumar (C.J.): ORDER (ORAL) [1] W.A. No. 57 of 2016 was filed by the State of Manipur and its officials, aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2015 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 790 of 2015. By the said order, the learned Judge directed the authorities to release certain amounts in favour of the writ petitioner, the respondent in the appeal. MC (W.A.) No. 49 of 2016 was filed by the appellants, seeking stay of the operation of the order dated 06.11.2015 passed in W.P. (C) No. 790 of 2015. [2] However, as there was an error in the understanding of the case and in consequence, the directions issued by the learned Judge, the writ petitioner filed Review Petition No. 25 of 2015. The said review petition was disposed of, vide order dated 04.12.2015. Thereby, the learned Judge corrected the mistakes committed earlier and observed that the writ petitioner was required to pay to the Government a sum of ₹. 81,00,000/- in relation to an auction sale, but his undisputed bill of ₹. 70,32,402/- was pending for payment. The learned Judge accordingly modified the earlier order and stated that out of the sum of ₹. 81,00,000/- payable by the writ petitioner, the undisputed bill amount of ₹. 70,32,402/- should be adjusted and the balance amount of ₹. 10,67,598/- should be deposited by the writ petitioner. This was to be done after the claim of the writ petitioner was verified by the authority concerned within a time frame. [3] Aggrieved by this review order dated 04.12.2015, the State of Manipur and its officials filed W.A. No. 58 of 2016. MC (W.A.) No. 51 of 2016 was W.A. No. 57 of 2016; & Ors. filed by them seeking stay of the operation of the order dated 04.12.2015 passed in Review Petition No. 25 of 2015. [4] Contempt Case (C) No. 81 of 2016 was filed by the writ petitioner alleging willful disobedience to the order dated 04.12.2015 passed in Review Petition No. 25 of 2015. [5] Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants in both the writ appeals and the respondents in the contempt case; and Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel for the respondent in the appeals and the petitioner in the contempt case. [6] The respondent in the appeals, the writ petitioner, had participated in the auction held by the State authorities pursuant to Auction Tender No. 6 of 2015 dated 08.04.2015, for sale of 42 condemned heavy vehicles and other machineries. The respondent/writ petitioner was declared successful with a bid of ₹. 81,00,000/- but it wanted to adjust the undisputed bill amount of ₹. 70,32,402/- which was to be paid to it against the same. It was in this context that this Court granted it relief. [7] While so, it appears that, by order dated 06.12.2017, the Deputy Secretary (Works), Government of Manipur, cancelled Auction Tender No. 6 of 2015 dated 08.04.2015. This cancellation attained finality as it was never questioned. That apart, Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel, would inform this Court that the pending bill amount of ₹. 7,32,402/- has been cleared to a great extent as over ₹. 65,00,000/- has already been paid to the respondent/writ petitioner. This fact is not disputed by Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner. W.A. No. 57 of 2016; & Ors. [8] In that view of the matter, the directions of this Court can no longer be acted upon due to the subsequent developments, noted hereinabove. The orders passed by this Court in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner are therefore set aside. In consequence, no cause is made out for exercise of contempt jurisdiction in relation thereto. [9] W.A. No. 57 of 2016 and W.A. No. 58 of 2016 are accordingly allowed. Contempt Case (C) No. 89 of 2016 is closed. MC (W.A.) No. 49 of 2016 and MC (W.A.) No. 51 of 2016 shall also stand closed in the light of this final order. Sandeep In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE W.A. No. 57 of 2016; & Ors.