Shri Laitonjam Meghachandra Singh v. State of Manipur

5. Shri N. Sarat Singh, the then Chief Engineer (Power), now re-engaged as Managing Director, MSPCL, Office at Keishampat Junction, PO & PS Imphal, Manipur-795001. Imphal West District,

6. Shri Thokchom Kaminihon Singh, aged about 66 years, S/o (L) Th. Tongjam Singh, the then E.E/Transmission Construction Division No. 1, now re-engaged as General Manager, MSPCL, resident of Wangkhei Ayangpalli, near Leima Keithel, PO & PS Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795005.

7. Shri Manoharmayum Budhachandra Sharma, aged about 65 years, S/o (L) M. Brajamani Sharma, the then E.E./Sub-Station Construction Division No. II, now re-engaged as General Manager, MSPCL, resident of Kwakeithel Moirangpurel Leikai, PO & PS Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795008. Respondents PIL No. 10 of 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN For the petitioner : Mr. N. Mahendra, Advocate For respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 Dsfsdfsdljf : Mr. Lenin Hijam, Advocate General For respondent No. 4 : Mr. M. Rarry, Advocate For respondent No. 5 : Mr. HS Paonam, Sr. Advocate For respondents No. 6 & 7 : Mr. N. Jotendro, Sr. Advocate Date of Order : 25.07.2022 Sanjay Kumar (C.J.): ORDER (ORAL) [1] This writ petition was filed in public interest by Laitonjam Meghanchandra Singh seeking a direction to the authorities of the State of Manipur to pass appropriate orders in terms of the order dated 07.02.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Lokayukta, Manipur, in Complaint Case No. 2 of 2020 and more particularly, in Paras 25 (D) & (E). Thereby, the Hon’ble Lokayukta, Manipur, had directed the State Government not to allow certain individuals to function in official positions and to entrust their duties to others till completion of the investigation against them. Amongst the individuals named were respondents No. 5, 6 & 7 herein. Pursuant to the aforestated direction, the Deputy Secretary (Power), Government of Manipur, addressed letter dated 13.04.2022 to the Managing Director, Manipur State Power Company Limited (MSPCL), conveying approval of the Government to the termination of the contractual engagement of respondents No. 6 & 7. However, no action was taken as regards respondent No. 5, viz., N. Sarat Singh, Managing Director, MSPCL, Manipur. PIL No. 10 of 2022 [2] While the matter was pending consideration on this issue, respondent No. 5 filed additional affidavit dated 16.07.2022 along with annexures. In his affidavit, N. Sarat Singh stated that, on 29.04.2022, Laitonjam Meghanchandra Singh, the petitioner in this case, accompanied by Ahanthem Karandewan Singh and his wife Yumnam Romika Devi, who is none other than the younger sister of Yumnam Babita Devi, the sister-in-law of N. Sarat Singh, visited him at his residence. He further stated that after examining the records, the petitioner expressed regret for filing the PIL case and claimed that he had been misguided by some persons. According to N. Sarat Singh, they then left his residence, but surprisingly, on 05.05.2022, Yumnam Romika Devi spoke to his daughter and informed her that the petitioner was demanding a huge sum of money for settling this PIL case. Photographs were also filed with this additional affidavit, wherein the petitioner is seen in the residence of respondent No. 5. This aspect was confirmed by Mr. D. Julius Riamei, learned counsel who appeared for the petitioner at that stage. In the light of the serious allegations leveled against him, the petitioner was given an opportunity to file his response, vide order dated 18.07.2022. [3] Thereupon, the petitioner filed additional affidavit dated 23.07.2022, wherein he admitted having gone to the house of respondent No. 5. According to him, respondent No. 5 was a stranger to him and so was Yumnam Babita Devi. He admitted that Ahanthem Karandewan Singh was a relative and a neighbor, while Yumnam Ronika Devi was his wife. He claimed that during the pendency of this case, he was approached by the said couple with a request to withdraw the instant PIL case at the instance of respondent No. 5 but he did not accede thereto. Having stated so, he then claimed that he was compelled and pressurized by the said couple to visit the residence of respondent of 5 and on their PIL No. 10 of 2022 repeated asking, so as to observe and keep neighborly relations with them, he was coerced into visiting respondent No. 5 at his residence. He admitted his presence in the photographs filed by respondent No. 5 and stated that there were five persons there at that time - Anil, the younger brother of Ahanthem Karandewan Singh, respondent No. 5, the couple and himself. He asserted that it was a stratagem, by which respondent No. 5, with the connivance of the other persons, enticed him to do the ‘unwise’ act of visiting the residence of respondent No. 5. [4] Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, we find that Mr. D. Julius Riamei, learned counsel, has now been replaced by Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel, who states that the petitioner instructed him to appear in the matter. Apart from the fact that the sudden change of counsel speaks for itself, the clear admission of the petitioner that he went to the residence of respondent No. 5 at the behest of a couple, knowing fully well that attempts were made by the very same couple to get him to withdraw this PIL case, raises serious doubts as to his bonafides in filing and pursuing this case. [5] On the one hand, the endeavour of the Hon’ble Lokayukta, Manipur, is to effectively address corruption in the State by taking appropriate action against those allegedly involved and, pending such investigation, certain individuals holding high office were asked to be shifted elsewhere. Using such an order as a means to make unlawful gains is not only a contradiction in terms but would also be clear abuse of process. The very fact that the petitioner went to the residence of respondent No. 5, knowing that he had filed a case against him and accompanied by the very same couple who had earlier tried to get him to withdraw this case, is a clear indication that the motive and actions of the petitioner were not above board. PIL No. 10 of 2022 [6] As the petitioner is shown to be completely lacking in bonafides, we are constrained to take note of the same and non-suit him on that ground. PIL No. 10 of 2022 is accordingly dismissed on this short ground, without going into the merits of the matter. Though, the petitioner is fully deserving of being mulcted with exemplary costs, we desist from doing so as the issue raised by him was in public interest though his motives were obviously not. Sapana JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE PIL No. 10 of 2022