Manipur High Court
P Age |3 vs Jonathan Pamei on 12 August, 2021
P age |1
KABORAMB IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AM LARSON AT IMPHAL
Digitally signed by Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
KABORAMBAM LARSON Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
Date: 2021.08.16
14:39:36 +05'30' 1. P.K. Maipak Rongmei, aged about 66 years,
S/o late Kachangbung Rongmei, a resident of
Maibam Kabui Khul, P.O. & P.S. Nambol,
Bishnupur District, Manipur - 795134.
2. Kamei Binoy [email protected] Kamjei Kamei, aged
about 56 years, S/o Themdei Kamei @ K.
Themdei Kabui, a resident of Naorem Kabui
Village, P.O. & P.S. Nambol, Bishnupur District,
Manipur - 795134.
3. Kamei [email protected] Kamei, aged about 26
years, S/o Kamjei Kamei, a resident of Naorem
Kabui Village, P.O. & P.S. Nambol, Bishnupur
District, Manipur - 795134.
4. Golmei Alex Rongmei, aged about 46 years,
S/o Abung Rongmei, a resident of Naorem
Kabui Village, P.O. & P.S. Nambol, Bishnupur
District, Manipur - 795134.
5. Kamei James Kabui, aged about 41 years, S/o
Kamei Ahanjao Kabui, a resident of Chingphu
Kabui Village, P.S. Wangoi, Bishnupur District,
Manipur - 795134.
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
P age |2
6. Panmei Abunglaona Kabui, aged about 31
years, S/o Panmei Pouchalung Kabui, a
resident of Langompokpi Kabui Village, P.O. &
P.S. Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur -
795134.
7. Golmei Gaipu Rongmei @ Khamgangpu, aged
about 31 years, S/o Gomei Gaishingpu, a
resident of Maibam Kabui Khul, P.O. & P.S.
Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur - 795134.
8. Pamei Gangamlung, aged about 31 years, S/o
P.K. Maipak @ Pamei Maipak Rongmei, a
resident of Maibam Kabui Khul, P.O. & P.S.
Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur - 795134.
9. Palmei Meithailu, aged about 22 years, D/o
Gaithoipu Panmei @ Rajen Panmei, a resident
of Maibam Kabui Khul, P.O. & P.S. Nambol,
Bishnupur District, Manipur - 795134.
10. Golmei Lukhamliu [email protected]
Gonmei, aged about 41 years, W/o late
Sachuilung Gonmei, a resident of Maibam
Kabui Khul, P.O. & P.S. Nambol, Bishnupur
District, Manipur - 795134.
11. Kamei Makuthui, aged about 24 years, S/o
Pouthoulung Kamei @ Kamei Paothaolung, a
resident of Maibam Kabui Khul, P.O. & P.S.
Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur - 795134.
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
P age |3
12. Khamgailu Pamei, aged about 26 years, D/O
Sanathpi Pamei @ Pamei Sanathoi, a resident
of Maibam Kabui Khul, P.O. & P.S. Nambol,
Bishnupur District, Manipur - 795134.
13. Machunna Pamei, aged about 36 years, W/o
Houreilung Pamei, a resident of Maibam Kabui
Khul, P.O. & P.S. Nambol, Bishnupur District,
Manipur - 795134.
14. Lediya [email protected] Gangmei, aged
about 22 years, D/o Alex Gangmei, a resident
of Maibam Kabui Khul, P.O. & P.S. Nambol,
Bishnupur District, Manipur - 795134.
15. James Gangmei, aged about 20 years, S/o
Alex Gangmei, a resident of Maibam Kabui
Khul, P.O. & P.S. Nambol, Bishnupur District,
Manipur - 795134.
16. Golmei Santala [email protected] Santra Gonmei,
aged about 46 years, W/o Manidum Gonmei, a
resident of Maibam Kabui Khul, P.O. & P.S.
Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur - 795134.
17. P. Lungthaolu Rongmei, aged about 30 years,
W/o P. Lungkurei Rongmei, a resident of
Maibam Kabui Khul, P.O. & P.S. Nambol,
Bishnupur District, Manipur - 795134.
...APPELLANTS
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
P age |4
-VERSUS-
1. Jonathan Pamei, aged about 58 years, S/o
late Keirang Pamei, a resident of Maibam Kabui
Khul, P.O. & P.S. Nambol, Bishnupur District,
Manipur-795134.
2. The State of Manipur through the Additional
Chief Secretary (Home), Government of
Manipur, South Block, Manipur Secretariat,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur - 795001.
3. The Director General of Police, Manipur, Police
Headquarter, Babupura, Near New Secretariat
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur - 795001.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Bishnupur, P.O.
& P.S. Bishnupur, Bishnupur District, Manipur -
795126.
5. The Officer-in-Charge, Nambol Police Station,
Bishnupur District, Manipur - 795134.
... RESPONDENTS
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
P age |5
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Appellants :: Mr. S. Biswajit, Advocate,
Mr. O. Ratan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents :: ....................
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 11.02.2021
Date of Judgment & Order :: 12.08.2021
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
(M.V. Muralidaran, J)
This writ appeal has been filed by the appellants
against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.9.2020
passed in W.P(C) No.503 of 2020.
2. The private respondents are the appellants
herein. The first respondent herein viz., Jonathan Pamei is the
writ petitioner. The writ petitioner filed the writ petition seeking
the following prayers:
(i) To admit this writ petition and issue Rule Nisi;
(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or
any other appropriate writ or order or direction
thereby, directing the Respondents to transfer
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
P age |6
the investigation of the criminal case under FIR
No.43 (7) 2020 Nambol Police Station U/S
436/34 IPC and FIR No. 68(10) 2019 Nambol
Police Station under Section
147/149/447/153(A)/322/34 IPC to a well
qualified senior investigating officer not below
the rank of Sub-Divisional Police Officer so that
he could proceed with the investigation and
make all attempts to book the culprits, who are
involved in the crime in accordance with law;
(iii) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or
any other appropriate writ or order or direction
thereby, directing the Respondents to
Rehabilitate and pay compensation to the
Petitioner so as to enable him to resettle at his
homestead land;
(iv) In the interim, to issue a writ in the nature of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order
or direction thereby, directing the Respondents
to take necessary steps for the Petitioner and
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
P age |7
his family to return to the village and resettle at
their homestead land;
(v) In the interim, to issue a writ in the nature of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order
or direction thereby, directing the Respondents
provide necessary protection from the dangers
of further attack by the Private Respondents and
his parties;
(vi) In the interim, to issue a writ in the nature of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order
or direction thereby, directing the private
Respondents to allow the Petitioner and his
familyto return to the village and resettle at their
homestead land;
(vii) To issue any other appropriate order or direction
which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge
disposed of the writ petition with the following observations:
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
P age |8
"[6] The petitioner, in the light of the above
decision, is entitled to work out his remedy
before the competent and appropriate forum
on his allegation that investigation is not to
his satisfaction. The second prayer relates to
compensation. The petitioner is at liberty to
move the Deputy Commissioner concerned at
the appropriate stage, for compensation if a
case is made out. In so far as protection is
concerned, he is entitled to make a
representation. The petitioner's counsel
states that the petitioner has made a
memorandum to the Director General of
Police, Manipur on 9thOctober, 2019 at
Annexure-A/2. The Director General of
Police, Manipur is directed to deal with the
memorandum himself or may direct the
concerned Superintendent of Police to cause
an inquiry and deal with the request for
protection if there is a just or reasonable
cause.
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
P age |9
[7] The first relief is declined. In respect of the
prayer Nos.2 and 3 for compensation, the
petitioner should approach the competent
authority at the appropriate stage. In so far as
the protection is concerned, the same stands
disposed of with the direction as indicated
above.
[8] With the above observation, the writ
.petition stands disposed of."
4. Assailing the aforesaid directions of the learned
Single Judge, the first and foremost submission of the learned
counsel for the appellants is that the writ petition has been
disposed of by the learned Single Judge without giving an
opportunity to the private respondents. He submits that any
order passed behind the back of the appellants, who are really
affected thereby, without giving any opportunity, cannot be
given effect to.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants further
submitted that the learned Single Judge indirectly
acknowledged the alleged wrong facts pleaded by the writ
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
P a g e | 10
petitioner in the writ petition and if the said averments are not
contradicted with the truth, the wrong facts pleaded by the writ
petitioner will be on record as true and correct facts, affecting
the appellants.
6. The leaned counsel next submitted that the
learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the
memorandum of the writ petitioner was made to the Hon'ble
Chief Minister of Manipur and not to any other competent
authority and as such, the learned Single Judge cannot give
directions to consider the memorandum submitted to the
Hon'ble Chief Minister. According to the learned counsel, the
learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the only option
left to the writ petitioner in respect of the said memorandum is
for the Hon'ble Chief Minster to refer the same to the
competent authority for appropriate action and even in that
case also, an opportunity of being heard should be given to
the other parties to contradict the same and put forth their
case.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants then
submitted that the writ petition suffers from non-joinder of
necessary party, inasmuch as one Gaigangpu Golmei, whose
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
P a g e | 11
name appeared in the FIR No.68(10)2019, was not made as a
party to the writ proceedings.
8. The learned counsel then submitted that the
learned Single Judge failed to verify the fact that there is no
church at the Mabam Kabui village and as such there is no
question of burning down the church and that the learned
Single Judge failed to appreciate that the writ petitioner is
trying to politicise the occurrence by adding the colour of
religion into it to create communal tension for his personal
gain.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants then
submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have
appreciated that any observations and directions of this Court,
even though the same are based on wrong and misleading
facts, are binding and have precedential value to all the
Subordinate Courts/Competent Authority and as such
verification of the contentions made in the writ petition by the
appellants by filing counter-affidavits need to be appreciated
for proper adjudication. Thus, the learned counsel submitted
that the appellants are aggrieved by the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge and prayed for setting aside the same.
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
P a g e | 12
10. On the other hand, the writ petitioner case is that
the appellants are the villagers of Maibam Kabui Khul, Naorem
Kabui Village, Chingphu Kabui Village and Langompokpi
Kabui Village, Brishnupur District, Manipur, who had formed
an unruly mob under their leadership and on 7 10 2019,
demolished the dwelling house of the writ petitioner, a church
building and banished the writ petitioner along with his family
members from their house and village arbitrarily.
11. The further case of the writ petitioner is that on
the fateful day, apart from demolishing the dwelling house and
the church building, the appellants and their men physically
assaulted the writ petitioner and his wife and son. In this
connection, the writ petitioner lodged an FIR No.68(10) 2019
before the Nambol Police Station against the appellants
herein, however, the appellants were not arrested and no
action has been taken till date.
12. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that on
9.10.2019, the writ petitioner submitted a memorandum to the
Hon'ble Chief Minister by marking copy to the Additional Chief
Secretary (Home), the Director General of Police, the
Superintendent of Police, Bishnupur and the Officer-in-Charge
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
P a g e | 13
of Nambol Police Station seeking their intervention. In the
meanwhile, the appellants obtained anticipatory bail and they
had also lodged a counter-complaint against the writ
petitioner's son in FIR No.69(10)2019.
13. Since there was slow progress in the
investigation, he had submitted another memorandum dated
15.11.2019 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister with a copy to the
other officials requesting for providing rehabilitation and
resettlement and to punish the offenders. He would submit
that pending FIR, some unknown miscreants suspected to be
members of Maibam Kabui Khul burnt the writ petitioner's
dwelling house. For the said incident, the writ petitioner lodged
a complaint before the Nambol Police Station and the case
was registered in FIR No.43(7)2020, however, there is no
progress in the investigation. Since at present the writ
petitioner and his family members are taking temporary shelter
at the house of his relatives and the first respondent being the
daily wage worker and they were not allowed to be reinstated
at their homestead land and the appellants compelled the first
respondent and his family members to live in the street and
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
P a g e | 14
starve, he had filed the writ petition seeking directions on the
respondents.
14. We have considered the submissions raised by
the counsel for the appellant and also perused the materials
available on record.
15. At the outset, it is to be mentioned that in the writ
petition, the first respondent prayed for writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to transfer the investigation of the
criminal case in FIR No.43(7)2020 and FIR No.68(10)2019 to
a well qualified senior investigating officer and direction on the
respondents to rehabilitate and pay compensation to the first
respondent. In the writ petition, the first respondent also
prayed for interim direction directing the respondents to take
necessary steps for the first respondent and his family to
return to the village and resettle at their homestead land and
direction on the respondents to provide necessary protection
from the dangers of further attack by the appellants and also
direction on the appellants to allow the first respondent and his
family to return to the village and resettle at their homestead
land. In effect, in the writ petition, the first respondent has
made seven prayers.
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
P a g e | 15
16. As far as the prayer for transfer of the
investigation is concerned, the learned Single Judge directed
the petitioner to work out his remedy before the competent
and appropriate forum. Anent the prayer for compensation is
concerned, the learned Single Judge has given liberty to the
petitioner to move the Deputy Commissioners concerned at
the appropriate stage. In so far as the prayer for protection is
concerned, the learned Single Judge observed that the writ
petitioner is entitled to make a representation. Thus, it is clear
from the order of the learned Single Judge that no positive
direction to the authorities was given.
17. Further, it is seen from the impugned order that
while observing so, on the representation of the learned
counsel for the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner has
already made a memorandum to the third respondent herein -
Director General of Police dated 9.10.2019, the Director
General of Police was directed to deal with the memorandum
himself or direct the concerned Superintendent of Police to
cause an inquiry and deal with the request for protection, if
there is a just or reasonable cause. We find that such a
direction issued by the learned Single Judge would prejudice
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
P a g e | 16
the appellants herein, inasmuch as such order was passed
without notice to the appellants herein.
18. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the
appellants 'argued that the learned Single Judge ought to
have appreciated that the memorandum dated 9.10.2019 was
made to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and not to any other
competent authority and as such, the learned Single Judge
cannot give directions to consider the memorandum dated
9.10.2019 submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Minister.
19. On a perusal of the memorandum dated
9.10.2019, we find that though the said memorandum has
been addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, copies of the
same were also forwarded/addressed to the (i) Local MLA; (ii)
The DGP, Manipur; (iii) The SP, Bishnupur; (iv) SDPO,
Nambol and (v) Guard File. The Director General of Police has
been arrayed as second respondent and the Superintendent
of Police has been arrayed as third respondent in the writ
petition. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the order of the
learned Single Judge, directing the Director General of Police
to deal with the memorandum himself or, in turn, direct the
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
P a g e | 17
Superintendent of Police to cause an inquiry and deal with the
request for protection.
20. The main contention of the appellants is that the
learned Single Judge indirectly acknowledged the alleged
contentions of the first respondent and without giving the
appellants an opportunity to rebut the same, has issued the
said direction and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
When the writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single
Judge, the learned Single heard the submissions of the
learned Government Advocate, who raised an objection as to
the maintainability of the writ petition qua the prayer for
transferring the investigation Considering the arguments of the
learned counsel, the learned Single Judge observed that as
far as the prayer for transfer of investigation is concerned, the
writ petitioner has to work out his remedy before the
competent and appropriate forum on his allegation that the
investigation is not to his satisfaction.
21. Though while disposing of the writ petition, the
learned Single Judge has not given an opportunity to the
appellants herein, the direction issued in the writ petition by
the learned Single Judge would not cause any serious
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
P a g e | 18
prejudice to them, inasmuch as no positive direction was given
by the learned Single Judge and the direction to the Director
General of Police to deal with the memorandum himself or, in
turn, direct the Superintendent of Police to cause an inquiry
and deal with the request for protection, would necessitate
such authority dealing with the memorandum to proceed only
in accordance with law not otherwise, which may include
hearing all parties concerned, if it is so contemplated under
law.
22. That apart, since the plea of the writ petitioner is
that he has been ostracized, assaulted and his dwelling house
was burnt merely on religious grounds, which allegations
cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings in a writ
petition and are disputed questions of fact, this Court does not
intend to delve into the merits of the allegations leveled by
both the writ petitioner and the appellants herein. It is for the
official respondents to look into the grievances of the writ
petitioner as well as the appellants and redress the same in
accordance with law. Since the learned Single Judge has not
issued any positive direction affecting the alleged rights of the
appellants and the learned Single Judge only directed the
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
P a g e | 19
Director General of Police to consider the memorandum dated
9.10.2019 or to direct the Superintendent of Police to inquire
and deal with the same, such a direction would not cause any
prejudice to the appellants. We find no infirmity in the order of
the learned Single Judge and the writ appeal therefore fails.
23. However, in the interest of justice and
considering the fact that the direction in the writ petition was
passed during September, 2020 and till date, according to the
writ petitioner, no order was communicated to him, the
authority concerned, Director General of Police, is requested
to consider the said memorandum of the writ petitioner in the
light of the observations hereinabove, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
24. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed, leaving
the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sushil
Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 503 of 2020
