Chingtham Mahendra Singh v. Shri Khwairakpam Wangkhei Singh & Ors.

1. Shri Khwairakpam Wangkhei Singh, aged about 51 years, S/o Late Kh. Heiru Singh, resident of Kwakeithel Mayaikoibi Konthoujam Leikai, P.O. – Imphal, P.S. – Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

2. The State Manipur, represented Commissioner/Principal Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat (South Block), P.O. & P.S. – Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West, Government of Manipur, P.O. – Imphal, P.S.- Lamphel, Imphal West District, Lamphelpat, Manipur – 795001.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Imphal West, Home Department, Government of Manipur, Imphal, Manipur-795001.

5. Salam Inaocha Singh, aged about 64 years, S/o Late S. Amu Singh, resident of Kwakeithel Mayaikoibi Konthoujam Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-

795001. … Respondents W.A. No. 65 of 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN For the appellant : Mr. LN Ngamba, Advocate For respondent No. 1 : Mr. A. Golly, Advocate Date of Order : 08.07.2022 ORDER (ORAL) Sanjay Kumar (C.J.): [1] The appellant is respondent No. 4 in W.P. (C) No. 623 of 2021. The said writ petition was filed by respondent No. 1 in this appeal, seeking a direction to the State authorities to discharge their statutory duty under the provisions of the Manipur Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1978, and to expeditiously dispose of Eviction Case No. 1 of 2019, pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West District. This prayer was made in the context of the alleged inaction of the authorities in taking appropriate steps against respondents No. 4 & 5 in the writ petition for acting in violation of the order dated 14.03.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West District, in Eviction Case No. 1 of 2019. By the said order, the Deputy Commissioner had directed that during the pendency of the case, construction of a car wash centre and other pucca structures on the land in question should not continue and should be stopped immediately. The complaint of the writ petitioner was that respondents No. 4 & 5 continued with the construction of structures in the disputed land but despite an application being filed in Eviction Case No. 1 of 2019, no steps were taken by the authorities to initiate action against them. [2] Notice having been ordered in the writ petition, tracking reports were filed by the writ petitioner in proof of service of the notice upon respondents W.A. No. 65 of 2022 No. 4 & 5 therein on 05.10.2021 and 01.10.2021 respectively. Despite the same, there was no representation on their behalf when the case was taken up for hearing by a learned Judge of this Court on 09.11.2021. [3] After hearing Mr. A. Golly, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the learned Judge reiterated the order dated 14.03.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West District, in Eviction Case No. 1 of 2019, and directed respondents No. 4 & 5 to cease utilization/construction of the car wash centre and other pucca structures over the land in dispute during the pendency of the writ petition. The authorities were directed to strictly implement this direction. [4] Thereupon, respondent No. 4 in the writ petition filed MC [W.P. (C)] No. 9 of 2022 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution seeking vacating/ modifying/discontinuing of the interim order dated 09.11.2021. By order dated

11.02.2021, the learned Judge held that there was no merit in the said miscellaneous case and dismissed the same. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No. 4 in the writ petition filed this appeal. [5] Heard Mr. LN Ngamba, learned counsel for the appellant; and Mr. A. Golly, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, the writ petitioner. [6] At the outset, Mr. A. Golly, learned counsel, would point out that MC [W.P. (C)] No. 9 of 2022 was utterly misconceived as Article 226(3) of the Constitution had no application. This Court finds merit in the said submission. The constitutional provision states to the effect that where any party against whom an interim order is made in a writ petition, without furnishing to it copies of the petition and documents filed in support of the plea for such interim order and without giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application for vacation of such order, such an application should be disposed of by the High Court within two weeks from the date on which it is received. As is clearly evident W.A. No. 65 of 2022 from the order dated 09.11.2021 passed by the learned Judge, respondents No. 4 & 5 had been duly served notice along with papers in the writ petition but they had not chosen to enter appearance before the Court despite the same. Therefore, they had an opportunity of being heard but did not avail of the same. In effect, the conditions mentioned in Article 226 (3) of the Constitution were not satisfied. In any event, the learned Judge decided the said miscellaneous case on merits, by pointing out that the interim order dated 09.11.2021 merely reiterated the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West, vide his order dated

14.03.2019 passed in Eviction Case No. 1 of 2019. It was on this basis that the learned Judge disallowed the said miscellaneous case. [7] Mr. LN Ngamba, learned counsel, would point out that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West, merely injuncted respondents No.4 and 5 from making constructions whereas the order of the learned Judge went further and restrained them from utilization of the property. No doubt, the word ‘utilization’ was not used by the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West, in his order dated 14.03.2019, but in the light of the averment made by the writ petitioner that respondents No. 4 & 5 had failed to abide by the said order and continued with the construction, the learned Judge was justified in restraining them from utilizing the illegal structures put up by them in alleged violation of the order dated 14.03.2019 in Eviction Case No. 1 of 2019. Therefore, even on merits, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. The writ appeal is bereft of merits and accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Sandeep JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE W.A. No. 65 of 2022