Manipur High Court
Shikhong Khumbi Mayai Leikai vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 23 December, 2021
1
JOHN
TELEN KOM IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Digitally signed by
JOHN TELEN KOM WP(C) No.86 of 2021
Date: 2021.11.16
10:42:40 +05'30'
1. The Loijing Loya Leishemba Lup, Regd.
No.990/SR/1971 having its office at Kumbi Bazar, PO
Moirang, P.S. Kumbi, Bishnupur District, Manipur-
795133, represented by its Secretary Shri. Kh. Bipin
Singh, aged about 43 years, s/o. Late Kh. Kesho Singh,
Kumbi Bazar, PO Moirang, PS Moirang, Bishnupur
District, Manipur-795133.
2. All Moirang Lois People's Welfare Association, Moirang,
Regd. No.53 of 2004 having its office at Moirang
Lamkhai, PO & PS Moirang, Bishnupur District,
Manipur-795133, represented by its Secretary Shir
Hemam Boyai Singh, aged about 53 years, s/o Late. H.
Chindum Singh, Moirang Lamkhai, PO & PS Moirang,
Bishnupur District, Manipur-795133.
3. All Wangoo Lois People's Welfare Association,
Wangoo, Regd. No.477 of 2016 having its office at
Wangoo Bazar, PO Moirang, P.S. Kumbi, Bishnupur
District, Manipur-795133, represented by its Secretary
Shri Sanasam Ranjoy Singh, aged about 48 years, s/o
S. Leikhon Singh, Wangoo Bazar, PO Moirang, P.S.
Kumbi, Bishnupur District, Manipur-795133.
2
4. The Langathel Lois Committee, Langathel, Regd. No.80
of 2016-17 having its office at Langathel Laikon Bazar,
PO Wangjing, P.S. Khongjom, Thoubal District,
Manipur-795148, represented by its Secretary Shri
Puyam Manaolukhoi Singh, aged about 56 years, s/o
late P. Leikham Singh, Langathel Laikon Bazar, PO
Wangjing, P.S. Khongjom, Thoubal District, Manipur-
795148.
5. All Shikhong Lois People's Welfare Association,
Shikhong, Regd. No.2 of 2020-21 having its office at
Shikhong Khumbi Mayai Leikai, PO Yairipok, P.S.
Nongpok Sekmai, Thoubal District, Manipur-795149,
represented by its Secretary Shri Laishram Joykumar
Singh, aged about 46 years, s/o Late L. Munhindro
Singh, Shikhong Khumbi Mayai Leikai, PO Yairipok,
P.S. Nongpok Sekmai, Thoubal District, Manipur-
795149.
6. Shri Wangkhem Nodia Singh, aged about 60 years, s/o
Late W. Bheigya Singh, a resident of Pallel Mayai
Leikai, PO Pallel, P.S. Kakching, Kakching District,
Manipur-795103.
7. Takhellambam Pratap Singh, aged about 45 years, s/o
late T. Tomba Singh, a resident of Wangoo Tera Awang
3
Leikai, BPO & PS Wangoo, Kakching District, Manipur-
795p103.
...Petitioners
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur represented by the
Commissioner/Secretary (MOBC & SC), Government of
Manipur, CM Secretariat, Babupara, PO & PS Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
2. The Director (OBC & SC), Government of Manipur, 1 st
Floor, South Block, Secured Office Complex, AT Line,
PO & PS Imphal, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur, Government of
Manipur, Mini Secretariat Complex, Bishnupur-Kha, P.O.
& P.S. Bishnupur, Bishnupur District, Manipur-795134.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal, Government of
Manipur, Mini Secretariat Complex, Thoubal, Thoubal
Athokpham, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District,
Manipur-795138.
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Kakching, Kakching
Chumnang, PO & PS Kakching, Kakching District,
Manipur-795103.
...Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. N.Ibotombi, Sr. Adv.
For the Respondents : N. Kumarjit, AG.
Date of hearing & reserved : 28.10.2021
Date of Judgment & Order : 09.11.2021.
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ
of mandamus directing the respondents to complete the enquiry to examine
various claims of the villages for inclusion to Loi community in the State of
Manipur and in case enquiry constituted by the State Government is not
completed within the stipulated period, a direction be issued to the concerned
Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer to issue status certificate to the
individual applicant if he/she is satisfied to the subjection of disabilities on
inquiry in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment and order dated
9.10.1996 passed in Civil Appeal No.14517 of 1996, reported in (1997) 2 SCC
523, subject to the outcome of the Inquiry Committee. In the writ petition, the
petitioners also sought direction on the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur to
issue status certificate to the applicants of the already identified Sageis in
respect of Wangoo village i.e. (i) Amom, (ii) Loitongbam, (iii) Sanasam, (iv)
Khangembam, (v) Sagolsem, (vi) Yumnam, (vii) Moirangthem and (viii)
Laishram in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 9.10.1996.
[2] The brief facts, as could be seen from the writ petition, are as
follows:-
(i) In pursuance of the President's notification issued in the year 1956, which
was based on the Administrative Report of the then Chief Commissioner of
Manipur, Lois community was one of the seven Scheduled Castes
communities in Manipur and as per the Chief Commissioner's report, Lois
have been treated as untouchable. Lois community mentioned in the
President's notification were the only people who resided in the villages, (1)
Sekmai, (2) Chakpaphayeng, (3) Koutruk, (4) Laimaram, (5) Laimaram
Khunou, (6) Ando, (7) Kwatha and (8) Khurkhul. The President's notification
and the Chief Commissioner's Administrative Report cannot be challenged
before any Court of Law as the said report was submitted after conducting a
due enquiry and the inclusion or exclusion of the Loi villages to the President's
notification can be done only by a law passed by the Parliament.
(ii) Many Loi villages were established during the reigns of several Kings for
banishment of prisoners or social offenders. In order to identify the Loi villages
in Manipur and their Loi population, in the year 1992, the State Government
constituted an Inquiry Committee and the report of the Inquiry Committee was
published in the year 1994 in which it was reported that there were 34 Loi
villages in Manipur.
(iii) As the banishment of prisoners or social offenders to the Loi villages were
not continued after the King Kullachanadra, the Sageis who were in existence
during the reign of the King Kullachanadra in the Loi villages will be the Loi
population as these Loi villagers have not mixed up with members of many
other communities at their village or outside. As such the Inquiry Committee
on Loi had identified the Loi Sageis of the 18 Loi villages. The Loi Sageis of
the remaining 16 villagers could not be identified by the then Inquiry
Committee as representatives of the said 16 villages had not appeared before
the Committee. However, the Inquiry Committee left the matter open for
further consideration as and when required.
(iv) Out of the 18 Loi villages, 10 Loi villages were not mentioned in the
President's notification. As such, the then Inquiry Committee recommended
the State Government to propose to the Central Government for amendment.
However, the proposed amendment of the President's notification is still
pending.
(v) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported at (1997) 2 SCC 523
(Shri Heikham Surchandra Singh v. The representatives of LOIs Kakching,
Manipur), observed that though the High Court was right that until the
amendment to the list has duly been made to the LOIs would be entitled to the
status of Schedule Castes, before issuance of the certificate of status the
competent officer should enquire whether the applicant is subjected to the
disabilities which the scheduled castes have been suffering. All those who
satisfy these criteria are entitled to the issuance of certificate until the
amendment is duly made by the Parliament under Article 341(2) of the
Constitution of India.
(vi) After the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Law Department of
the Government of Manipur had issued several clarifications in respect of the
issuance of the status certificate. In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the subsequent clarifications/interpretations of the State
Government's Law Department, it can be concluded that if the Deputy
Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer is satisfied the applicant's disabilities on
enquiry, issuance of Schedule Caste certificate is under the obligation of the
Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer concerned until the amendment
of President's notification is duly made.
(vii) In terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, apart from the Loi
populations residing in eight villages mentioned in the President's notification,
the Deputy Commissioner had issued Scheduled Caste certificates in favour
of the new Loi villages out of the 10 Loi villages which were verified as Loi
Sageis by the then Inquiry Committee in 1992. Though the amendment of the
President's notification was not made, the Loi population of the seven Loi
villages have enjoyed the facilities of Scheduled Castes, except (1) Wangoo,
(2) Sugnu and (3) Waikhong and these three left out Loi villagers deserve to
get the Scheduled Caste certificates in the same manner of the seven Loi
villages. However, the concerned authorities, namely, Deputy
Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer, Kakching and the Deputy
Commissioner, Bishnupur/Sub-Divisional Officer, Moirang have not issued the
status certificates to them till date.
(viii) According to the petitioners, the inactions or reluctances of the Deputy
Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer concerned regarding the issuance of the
status certificates to the Loi villages, namely (1) Wangoo, (2) Sugnu and (3)
Waikhong is improper. It will be holistic if the concerned Deputy
Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer issues the status certificates to them
also in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in respect of the seven
villages.
(ix) The left out 16 Loi villages had extremely desired to the return of their Loi
status although their elders did not appear before the then Inquiry Committee
of 1992 due to the lack of knowledge about the purpose of the Constitution for
categorizing the Scheduled Castes community which was for uplifting the
backward communities in the country.
(x) On 6.4.2015, the All Kumbi Loi People's Welfare Association submitted
claims in respect of eight Sageis to the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur to
issue the status certificates and the then Deputy Commissioner referred the
claims to the State Government for a decision as to whether only eight Sageis
identified by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Moirang would be categorized as Lois
or a Committee at the Government Level should be constituted to identify
those Sageis which fall under the category of Loi community of Kumbi area.
(xi) In order to identify the Loi population of the other 16 Loi villages, the State
Government had constituted an Inquiry Committee consisting of three
members to examine various claims for inclusion to Loi community on
19.10.2016 and the term of the Committee was for a period of three months
from the date of the notification. As the term of the Committee expired before
completing the inquiry, the said Committee was re-constituted on 21.11.2016
and the re-constituted Committee was directed to submit a report within a
period of three months from the date of notification. As the term of the second
Committee also expired before completing the inquiry, new Committee was
again re-constituted for a period three months vide notification dated
18.9.2018. Accordingly, the Director (OBC & SC) invited claims for inclusion
to Loi community and various Loi villages which had not appeared before the
Inquiry Committee of 1992 and several individuals have submitted their claims
to the new Inquiry Committee for examination and identification. Pursuant to
the notification of the Director (OBC & SC), affidavits of various
Associations/Individuals, including the present petitioners have been
submitted to the Committee for verification/identification of the claims.
(xii) On 13.7.2019 and on 15.7.2019, the 14-Loi/SC Forum, Manipur
requested the Director (OBC & SC) as well as the Hon'ble Chief Minister for
early completion of the inquiry. However, the Government has not taken
action on the representations till date. As the term of the third Committee also
expired before completion of the inquiry, another six months time was
extended vide notification dated 20.7.2019 and the extended term had also
expired on 20.1.2020.
(xiii) According to the petitioners, they have not received any summons from
the Inquiry Committee till date and the claimants are still assuming that
necessary proceedings of the Inquiry Committee does not start till date. Even
if the ongoing inquiry cannot be completed due to many unavoidable
circumstances, the Loi population residing in the left out 16 Loi villages are
entitled and may be issued the status certificate by the Deputy
Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer concerned, if they are satisfied to the
subjection of disabilities of the individual applicant on conducting due inquiry
because it will not be just and proper to deprive longer the rights of the
backward people. Hence, the writ petition.
[3] The respondents 1 and 2 filed affidavit stating that till the expiry
of the term of the Inquiry Committee constituted to examine various claims for
inclusion to Loi community in the State of Manipur on 20.1.2020, no hearing
of claims took place and the competent authority shall take a decision to the
claims for inclusion in the Loi community after hearing and after perusal of all
relevant records.
[4] The third respondent field affidavit stating that in pursuance of
the Inquiry Committee on Lois constituted by the Government of Manipur vide
order dated 30.6.1994 for identification of Sageis constituting the Lois as per
the inquiry report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Moirang, Bishnupur
District, 22 Sageis/Clans of Kumbi, Bishnupur District and 42 Sageis/Clans of
Moirang, Bishnupur District were found belonging to the Lois community in the
recommendation which was approved vide order dated 8.7.1994 and further
submitted for inclusion of 16 Sageis/Clans of Wangoo Lois village. It is stated
that the finding of the inquiry has been submitted to the Director (OBC & SC)
on 3.3.2021 for necessary action.
[5] The fourth respondent filed affidavit stating that with regard to the
claims of the people inhabitated in Thoubal District in the Loi community of the
State, the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal conducted an inquiry
through the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, Thoubal and as per the inquiry
report, the claims for inclusion of 14 Sageis of Langathel Lois village and 16
Sageis of Shikhong Lois village are supported by the Langathel Lois
Committee, Langathel and the Sikhong Peoples Welfare Association,
Shikhong respectively as per their genealogy.
[6] The fifth respondent filed affidavit stating that the office of the
Deputy Commissioner, Kakching conducted an inquiry through the concerned
Sub-Divisional Offices of Kakching and Waikhong Sub-Divisions. The claims
for inclusion of Wangkhen Sagei of Pallel Loi Community, Kakching and
Takhellambam Sagei of Wangoo Loi community are also supported by the
representatives of Lois of the two communities as per their genealogy.
However, for other villagers, their status may be confirmed after the report of
the Inquiry Committee constituted by the Government of Manipur.
[7] Mr. N. Ibotombi, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners
submitted the Secretaries, Representatives of the village SC Loi Welfare
Associations and individuals belonging to different Districts of Manipur have
submitted their claims for issuance of Loi Scheduled Caste certificate to the
indigenous Sageis/Clans of the respective villages since 2011 and the
authority concerned has not taken any steps so far. The learned senior
counsel further submitted that despite the Government of Manipur constituted
the Inquiry Committee to examine the claims, no process was started and that
the time framed for inquiry has, in fact, gone without any positive outcome
even after the lapse of more than two decades in different instances. The
learned senior counsel would submit that the petitioners are compelled to run
from pillar to post for early completion of the inquiry.
[8] Highlighting that the seven Loi villages who were enjoying the
facilities of Scheduled Caste except three Loi villages, namely, Wangoo,
Sugnu and Waikhong, who deserve to get the Scheduled Caste certificates in
the same manner of the other Loi villages, the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners argued that the Deputy Commissioner, Kakching/Sub-Divisional
Officer, Kakching, the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur and the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Moirang have not issued the status certificates till date to
the applicants/claimants who have applied for the same. The learned senior
counsel submits that the inaction of the concerned Deputy
Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer qua the issuance of the status
certificates to the aforesaid three Loi villages is improper and that the
concerned Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer failed to act in terms
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment reported at (1997) 2 SCC 523 (supra).
[9] The learned senior counsel next submitted that regarding 16 Loi
villages which could not be identified by the then Inquiry Committee of 1992,
the then Inquiry Committee had left the matter i.e. identification of the Loi
population of the 16 Loi villages open for further consideration and that the left
out 16 Loi villages had extremely desired to the return of their Loi status
though their elders did not appear before the then Inquiry Committee of 1992
due to the lack of knowledge. He would submit that in order to identify the Loi
population of the 16 Loi villages, the State Government constituted an Inquiry
Committee consisting of three members to examine various claims for
inclusion of Loi community. As the term of the said Inquiry Committee expired
before completing the inquiry, the Committee was re-constituted three times
and the last Committee's term also expired on 20.1.2020 and that the
petitioners could not able to ascertain the status of the progress of the inquiry,
nor they received any summons or information for any proceedings from the
Inquiry Committee till date.
[10] The learned senior counsel for the petitioners then submitted that
taking much time or undue delay or postpone many times without limit in the
ongoing inquiry will not be a holistic towards the backward Loi community
because it deprives the constitutional rights of those left out Loi communities
which have not received the status certificates for a long time and as such,
there should not be any delay in conducting the ongoing inquiry. The learned
senior counsel submitted that as long as the inquiry is not completed, the Loi
community of the left out Loi villages will not be able to get their constitutional
rights. In fact, the left out Loi villages are the real Loi villages which were
historically evidenced and recommended by the then Inquiry Committee of
1992.
[11] Mr. N. Kumarjit, the learned Advocate General appearing for the
respondents submitted that no hearing of claims took place till the expiry of
the term of the Inquiry Committee constituted to examine various claims for
inclusion in the Loi community in the State of Manipur and that the competent
authority shall take decision to the claims for inclusion in the Loi community
after hearing and after perusal of the relevant records.
[12] Taking through the affidavit filed by the third respondent, Mr. N.
Kumarjit, the learned Advocate General submitted that in pursuance of the
Inquiry Committee on Lois constituted by the Government of Manipur for
identification of Sageis constituting the Lois, as per the inquiry report
submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Moirang, Bishnupur District, 22
Sageis/Clans of Kumbi, Bishnupur District and 42 Sageis/Clans of Moirang,
Bishnupur District were found belonging to the Lois community and further
submitted for inclusion of 16 Sageis/Clans of Wangoo Lois village and that the
said finding of the inquiry has been submitted to the second respondent for
necessary action.
[13] With regard to the claims of the people inhabited in Thoubal
District in the Loi community of the Manipur State, the learned Advocate
General submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal conducted an
inquiry through the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, Thoubal and as per the
inquiry report, the claims for inclusion of 14 Sageis of Langathel Lois village
and 16 Sageis of Shikhong Lois village are supported by the Langathel Lois
Committee, Langathel and the Sikhong Peoples Welfare Association,
Shikhong respectively as per their genealogy.
[14] The learned Advocate General further submitted that the Deputy
Commissioner, Kakching conducted an inquiry though the concerned Sub-
Divisional Officer of Kakching and Waikhong Sub-Divisions and the claims for
inclusion of Wangkhem Sagei of Pallel Loi community, Kakching and
Takhellambam Sagei of Wangoo Loi community are also supported by the
representatives of Lois of the two communities as per their genealogy. The
learned Advocate General submitted that insofar as the other villagers, their
status may be confirmed after the report of the Inquiry Committee constituted
by the Government of Manipur.
[15] This Court considered the submissions raised by the learned
counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on
record.
[16] The grievance of the petitioners is that they are the left out 16 Loi
villagers and the identification of the Loi Sageis of the left out 16 Loi villages
have been undertaken by constituting an Inquiry Committee on 19.10.2016 by
keeping a target for completion of the inquiry within three months, however,
the ongoing inquiry cannot be completed till date. Since the ongoing inquiry
has taken nearly 3 years 9 months and because of the non-completion of the
inquiry, the Loi people of the left out 16 villages cannot get their status
certificate till date. Hence, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition.
[17] It appears that the first petitioner is a voluntary organization for
the welfare of the backward community, particularly the Loi community
residing within the Kumbi village and representing 90 Sageis. The second
petitioner is also a voluntary organization for the welfare of the backward
community, particularly the Loi community residing within the Moirang village
and representing 42 Sageis. The third petitioner is a voluntary organization
for the welfare of the backward community, particularly the Loi community
residing within the Wangoo village and representing 16 Sageis. The fourth
respondent is also a voluntary organization representing 14 Sageis residing
within the Langathel village. The fifth petitioner is also a voluntary
organization representing 16 Sageis residing within the Shikhong village. The
petitioner Nos.6 and 7 are claiming their Sageis as Loi community from the
Lois villages, namely Wangoo and Pallel in individual capacity.
[18] "Loi" is the word in the Meitei language (Meiteilon) for the term
Scheduled Caste. The Loi is given to the indigenous and aboriginal people of
Manipur in northeast India who refused to adopt Hinduism or were semi-
Hinduised when the newly converted Manipuri King ordered all his subjects to
adopt the religion. The Chakpa language is also known as Loi. Although
Chakpa people are usually considered to be Loi, not all Loi are Chakpa
(Huziwara, Keisuke (2020) "On the genetic position of Chakpa within Luish
languages"). There are two kinds of Loi according to Parratt (Parratt, John
ed. (1998). Notes on Meithei (Manipuri) beliefs and customs, Manipur) - (1)
tributary tribes conquered by the Meitheis; (2) outcasted people from Meithei
society who were banished to Loi villages.
[19] In pursuance of the President's notification issued in the year
1956, Lois is one of the seven Scheduled Caste communities in Manipur State
and as per the then Commissioner's Administrative Report, the Lois have
been treated as untouchable for the following reasons:
(i) The Lois are not allowed to enter the houses
of the Meiteis (Manipur Hindus)
(ii) Inter-marriage and co-dining between the Lois
and the Meitei are prohibited.
(iii) The main occupation of the Lois are cultivation
and distilling of country liquor.
(iv) The Lois worship goddess of nature.
(v) The Lois cremate their deaths in this respect
they are akin to the Hindus.
[19] Many Loi villages were established during the reigns of several
Kings for banishment of prisoners or social offenders and in order to identify
the Loi villages, the State Government constituted an Inquiry Committee in the
year 1992 and the Inquiry Committee's Report was published in the Gazette
in the year 1994, wherein 34 Loi villages in Manipur has been identified. Out
of 34 Loi villages, Loi Sageis population of 18 Loi villages were identified and
the remaining 16 villages could not be identified by the then Inquiry
Committee, as representatives of the said 16 Loi villagers were not appeared
before the Committee. However, the Inquiry Committee left the matter open
for further consideration in respect of 16 Loi villages.
[20] At this juncture, it would be pertinent to note the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Heikham Surchandra Singh (supra),
wherein, it has been held as under:
"Under these circumstances, though the High Court was right
that until the amendment to the list has duly been made the
Lois would be entitled to the status of Scheduled Castes,
before issuance of the certificate of status, the competent
officer should enquire whether the applicant is subjected to the
disabilities which the Scheduled Castes have been suffering.
All those who satisfy these criteria alone are entitled to the
issuance of the certificate until the Amendment is duly made
by the Parliament under Article 341(2) of the Constitution."
[21] The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Heikham Surchandra Singh (supra) is to issue status certificates by the
concerned Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer, if they have found
satisfaction to the sufferings of the applicants on conducting inquiry until the
amendment of the President's notification is duly made.
[22] It is the say of the petitioners that out of the 18 Loi villages, 10
Loi villages namely (1) Kakching Khullen, (2) Kakching Khunou, (3) Sugnu,
(4) Pallel, (5) Thanga, (6) Wangoo, (7) Kahamaran, (8) Moirang, (9)
Waikhong, (10) Chairel were not mentioned in the President's notification.
Out of the aforesaid 10 Loi villages, the status certificates were issued in
favour of only seven Loi villages namely (1) Kakching Khullen, (2) Kakching
Khunou, (3) Pallel, (5) Chairel, (6) Thanga, (7) Moirang, except three Loi
villages, namely (1) Wangoo, (2) Sugnu and (3) Waikhong.
[23] The identification of the Loi Sageis of left out 16 Loi villages have
been undertaken by constituting an Inquiry Committee on 19.10.2016 by
keeping a target for completion of the inquiry within three months. However,
the inquiry cannot be completed and second Committee was re-constituted
and the re-constituted Committee has to submit its report within a period of
three months from 21.11.2017. As the term of second Committee also expired
before completing the inquiry, third Committee was again re-constituted for a
period of three months on 18.9.2018. Pursuant to the notification dated
18.9.2018, the second respondent invited claims for inclusion to Loi
community and various Loi villages which had not appeared before the Inquiry
Committee of 1992 and several other individuals have submitted their claims
to the new Inquiry Committee for examination and identification. In pursuance
of the notification dated 2.11.2018, the petitioners and various Associations
have submitted their affidavits to the Committee for verification/identification
of the claims. As the third term of the third Committee also expired before
completion of the inquiry, again another term of six months was given on
20.7.2019 and the said extended period had also expired on 20.1.2020. It is
thus clear that the process for the fourth round re-constituted Committee with
the extension of timeline is going on unending.
[24] At this juncture, the learned Advocate General submits that
before the expiry of the extended period on 20.1.2020, no hearing of claims
took place and the competent authority is ready to take decision on the claims
for inclusion in the Loi community after hearing and after perusal of all the
relevant records.
[25] The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is also to
direct the respondents to complete the inquiry to examine various claims of
the Loi villages for inclusion to Loi community in the State of Manipur. The
further grievance of the petitioners is that in case the inquiry constituted by the
State Government is not completed within the stipulated time, the petitioners
seeks direction on the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer to issue
status certificate to the individual applicant if he/she is satisfied to the
subjection of disabilities on inquiry in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court referred to above.
[26] It appears that the time framed for the inquiry, admittedly, has
gone without any positive outcome after a lapse of more than two decades
and for one reason or the other, the inquiry was not completed till date. The
concerned authorities have to do speedy exercise for early completion of the
inquiry. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submits that the
petitioners are always ready to co-operate with the authority for early
completion of the inquiry.
[27] In terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Heikham Surchandra Singh (supra) and the subsequent interpretations and
clarifications of the Law Department of the Manipur State, it is clear that until
the amendment of the President's notification is made by the Parliament, the
concerned Deputy Commissioners/Sub-Divisional Officers have a discretion
and are being the sole authority to issue the status certificate, if the applicants
are satisfied to the subjection of disabilities of the individual applicant of any
Loi villages or any other places within the State of Manipur on conducting due
inquiry.
[28] In the facts and circumstances of the given case, this Court finds
that there is merit in the case of the petitioners claim to direct the respondent
authorities to complete the inquiry within the stipulated period. This Court is
also of the view that all those who satisfy the criteria indicated by the Inquiry
Committee are only entitled to the issuance of the status certificate by the
concerned authorities.
[29] In the result,
(a) The writ petition is allowed.
(b) The respondent authorities are directed to complete the
inquiry to examine various claims of the villages for
inclusion of the left out Loi community in the State of
Manipur within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
(c) Upon identifying and inclusion, the concerned authorities
are directed to issue the status certificate to the left out
Loi community in the State of Manipur based on the
individual application made by the each of the applicant,
if the applicant satisfied the subjection of disabilities in
terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case
of Shri Heikham Surchandra Singh v. The
representatives of LOIs Kakching, Manipur, reported in
(1997) 2 SCC 523 as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of four months thereafter.
(d) The Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur is directed to
issue status certificates to the applicants of the already
identified Sageis in respect of Wangoo village i.e. (i)
Amom, (ii) Loitongbam, (iii) Sanasam, (iv) Khangembam,
(v) Sagolsem, (vi) Yumnam, (vii) Moirangthem and (viii)
Laishram subject to the satisfaction of the criteria
indicated by the Inquiry Committee and in terms of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Shri
Heikham Surchandra Singh v. The representatives of
LOIs Kakching, Manipur, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 523.
(e) It is made clear that if the applicant has not satisfied the
criteria indicated by the Inquiry Committee, the
respondent authorities are prohibited in issuing the status
certificates.
(f) Since the issuance of the status certificate to the Lois
community is pending for more than two decades, the
concerned authorities are directed to utmost attention to
this matter.
(g) The representatives of various associations, including
the petitioners and other individual applicants are
directed to co-operate with the Inquiry Committee for
early completion of the inquiry.
(h) No costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
John Kom
