State Of Manipur vs Shri Rk. Robindro Singh
2021 Latest Caselaw 47 Mani

MAYAN Digitally
        by
                 signed

GLAMBA MAYANGLAMB
        AM CHANU
                                                                                          Item No. 12
                                                                        (Through Video Conferencing)
M       NANDINI
        Date:
CHANU 2021.03.08                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
        11:27:32                           AT IMPHAL
NANDINI +05'30'                               MC(WA) No. 23 of 2020

                1.     State of Manipur, represented by the Principal
                       Secretary/Commissioner     (IFCD/now        as   Water
                       Resource Department), Government of Manipur,
                       Old Secretariat, Babupara, Imphal West District,
                       Manipur - 795001.
                2.     The Principal Secretary (Finance), Government of
                       Manipur, Old Secretariat, Babupara, Imphal West
                       District, Manipur - 795001.
                3.     The Chief Engineer, Irrigation & Flood Control
                       Department now remain as Water Resource
                       Department,      Government         of       Manipur,
                       Lamphelpat, Manipur - 795004.
                4.     The Executive Engineer, Khuga Canal Division No.
                       II, Irrigation & Flood Control Department now as
                       Water Resource Department, Government of
                       Manipur, Lamphelpat, Manipur - 795004.
                                                                                       ....Applicants

                                                     - Versus -

                Shri RK. Robindro Singh, aged about 50 years, S/o (L)
                R.K.   Sekhorsana    Singh,   a   registered      Government
                Contractor by professional, a resident of Sagolband
                Meino Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
                Manipur - 795001.
                                                                                      ...Respondent


                                                                                          Page 1 of 4
                             BEFORE
         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

For the applicants                   :     Miss. Tejpriya, Advocate
For the respondent                   :     Mr. M. Devananda, Advocate
Date of hearing & order              :     05.03.2021


                                   O R D E R

[1] Aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.07.2015 passed by a

learned Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2015, the State of Manipur

and its officers preferred this unnumbered writ appeal. M.C. (W.A.) No. 23 of

2020 was filed by them seeking condonation of the delay of 1659 days in its

presentation.

[2] Heard Miss. Tejpriya, learned counsel representing Mr. Lenin

Hijam, learned Additional Advocate General, Manipur, appearing for the

applicants/appellants, and Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel for the

respondent.

[3] The complaint of the respondent/writ petitioner before the

learned Judge was that he had not been paid his outstanding bills in relation

to certain works carried out by him for the State. By the order under appeal,

the learned Judge directed the authorities to verify his claims within three

months and release the undisputed amount payable to him in accordance with

the seniority in completion of works.

[4] This being the innocuous nature of the order under appeal, the

State and its officers chose to prefer the present writ appeal with an inordinate

delay of 1659 days. Surprisingly, the application for condonation of this delay

does not offer even the semblance of an excuse or explanation to account for

this long delay. All that is mentioned in the application is that funds were

insufficient to make the payment to the petitioner before the expiry of the

stipulated three months and in the meanwhile, the respondent/writ petitioner

had initiated contempt proceedings. According to the authorities, it was

realized at that stage that the order under appeal was against the law settled

by the Supreme Court, prompting them to file an appeal with delay.

[5] At the outset, it may be noted that there was no positive

direction or mandate by the learned Judge with regard to either payment of a

particular amount or payment within a time frame. All that the learned Judge

directed was that the authorities should undertake verification of the

respondent/writ petitioner's claims within a time frame and thereafter release

the undisputed amount in accordance with the seniority in completion of

works.

[6] In that view of the matter, it is not open to the State authorities

to claim that this innocuous direction is in violation of the law laid down by the

Supreme Court to the effect that the Writ Court should ordinarily not interfere

in contractual matters. Further, the law is equally well settled that is not open

to the State, being a party to a contract, to ignore its obligation thereunder

and claim immunity from writ jurisdiction, requiring the aggrieved other party

to the contract to go in for a lengthy resolution process before the competent

Civil Court. That apart, as already pointed out supra, there is no explanation

whatsoever for the long delay in the presentation of this appeal. Ignorance of

law is no excuse and the same cannot be cited as a valid ground for this delay.

[7] On the above analysis, this Court finds no reason to condone the

delay or entertain this appeal, even on merits. M.C.(W.A.) No. 23 of 2020 is

accordingly dismissed. In consequence, the appeal shall also stand dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

                                 JUDGE                       CHIEF JUSTICE

FR/NFR

bipin