Shri Hawaibam Pradeep Kumar Singh vs Shri Akoijam Sanatomba Singh
2021 Latest Caselaw 263 Mani

                                                                              Page |1
SHAMUR Digitally
         by
                 signed

AILATPA SHAMURAILATP
         AM SUSHIL
M SUSHIL SHARMA                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
         Date: 2021.11.11                  AT IMPHAL
SHARMA 13:46:23 +05'30'
                                   MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 101 of 2021
                                   Ref:- Cont.Cas(C) No. 58 of 2021

                            Shri Hawaibam Pradeep Kumar Singh, aged
                            about 37 years, Executive Officer, Thoubal
                            Municipal Council, Thoubal, Office at Thoubal
                            Wangmataba, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal
                            District, Manipur-795138.

                                                                            ... Applicant
                                                  - Versus -

                           1.   Shri Akoijam Sanatomba Singh, aged about
                                58 years, S/o (L) Ak. Heramot Singh of
                                Thoubal Wangmataba, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal,
                                Thoubal District, Manipur-795138.

                           2.   Shri Akoijam Yaimachouba @ Yaimachou
                                Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o (L) Ak.
                                Thambal Singh of Thoubal Wangmataba,
                                P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District,
                                Manipur-795138.
                           3.   Smt. Akoijam Manitombi Devi, aged about
                                51 years, W/o Ak. Somen Singh of Thoubal
                                Wangmataba, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal
                                District, Manipur-795138.
                           4.   Shri Akoijam Somen Singh, aged about 55
                                years, Ak. Chaoba Singh of Thoubal
                                Wangmataba, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal
                                District, Manipur-795138.

                                                                      ... Respondents

MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 101 of 2021 Ref:-Cont.Cas(C) No. 58 of 2021 Page |2

B E F O R E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN

For the Applicant :: Mr. Y. Romesh, Adv.,

For the respondents :: Mr. Juno Rahman, Advocate.

     Date of Hearing &
     Reserving Judgment &
     Order                        ::   28.10.2021.

     Date of Judgment & Order     ::   09.11.2021


                         JUDGMENT & ORDER
                              (CAV)

This Miscellaneous Case has been filed by the

applicant/contemnor seeking to close the Contempt Case (C) No.58 of

2021 since the order dated 22.04.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.466 of

2016 with W.P.(C) Nos.499 of 2016 and 415 of 2018 has been complied

with.

2. The applicant herein is the third respondent in the

Contempt Case No.58 of 2021.

3. I heard Mr. Y. Romesh, the learned counsel for the

applicant and Mr. Juno Rahman, the learned counsel for the

respondents.

MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 101 of 2021 Ref:-Cont.Cas(C) No. 58 of 2021 Page |3

4. Mr. Romesh, the learned counsel for the applicant

submitted that by the common order dated 22.4.2021, this Court

disposed of W.P.(C) Nos.466, 499 of 2016 and 415 of 2018 by directing

the Thoubal Municipal Council, through the Executive Officer and the

Administrator, Thoubal, Government of Manipur to consider the case of

the respondents herein for allotment of shops in the 15 lying vacant

shops in the New Thoubal Market by giving personal opportunity to the

respondents without affecting the allotment of the respondents 5 to 8 in

W.P.(C) No.415 of 2018 and the said exercise was directed to be

completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of

the copy of the order.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that alleging that

the order of this Court dated 22.4.2021 has not been complied with,

Contempt Case No.58 of 2021 came to be filed by the respondents on

05.7.2021. He would submit that pursuant to the direction of this Court

dated 22.4.2021, the applicant has issued an order dated 8.7.2021 and

that challenging the order dated 8.7.2021, W.P.(C) No.493 of 2021

came to be filed on 6.8.2021 by the respondents. The learned counsel

submitted that since the order of this Court dated 22.4.2021 has been

duly complied with by the applicant, the Contempt Case No.58 of 2021

is to be closed.

MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 101 of 2021 Ref:-Cont.Cas(C) No. 58 of 2021 Page |4

6. Per contra, Mr. Juno Rahman, the learned counsel for the

respondents/writ petitioners submitted that the contempt petition cannot

be closed on the ground that the respondents have filed W.P.(C)

No.493 of 2021 challenging the order dated 8.7.2021 and that the action

and conduct of the contemnors amounts to willful and deliberate

violation of the common order dated 22.4.2021.

7. To support his case, Mr. Juno Rahman produced the

following two judgments:-

1) 1995 Supp (4) SCC 465 (Modern Food Industries

(India) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sachidanand Dass & Anr.)

2) (1992) 4 SCC 167 (State of J and K Vs. Mohd.

Yaqoob Khan and Others)

8. This Court considered the submissions raised by the

learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the

materials available on record.

9. By the common order dated 22.4.2021, W.P.(C) Nos.466,

499 of 2016 and 415 of 2018 with M.C.(WP) Nos.100, 65, 98 and 99 of

2021 are disposed by this Court. The operative portion of the order

reads thus:

MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 101 of 2021 Ref:-Cont.Cas(C) No. 58 of 2021 Page |5

"[9] Considering the arguments advanced by both the counsels, if this Court inclined to pass appropriate orders by directing the Respondent Nos.4 and 9 in all the three Misc. Cases in MC ]W.P.(C)] Nos.98, 99 and 100 of 2021, no prejudice would be caused to the Govt. Respondents as well as the private Respondent Nos.5 to 8. Hence, without going into the merits and demerits of the case of the petitioners since the petitioners are not pressed the prayers sought for in all the three writ petitions, I am inclined to pass the following orders:

a) all the three writ petitions in W.P.(C) Nos.466 of 2016, 415 of 2018 and 499 of 2016 are disposed of.

b) Respondent No.4 by namely, the Thoubal Municipal Council (TMC), Toubal through the Executive Officer (E.O), Thoubal Municipal Council (TMC), Thoubal, Manipur and Respondent No.9 by namely, the Administrator, Thoubal, Government of Manipur, Office at Thoubal Athokpam, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur in MC[W.P.(C)] Nos.98, 99 and 100 of 2021, are directed to consider the case of all the petitioners in respect of claim of the petitioners for allotment of shops in the 15

MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 101 of 2021 Ref:-Cont.Cas(C) No. 58 of 2021 Page |6

(fifteen) lying vacant shops in the New Thoubal Market under the control of Thoubal Municipal Council by giving personal opportunity to the petitioners without affecting the allotment of the Respondent Nos.5 to 8 in W.P.(C) No.415 of 2018.

c) the said exercise shall be done within a period of 3 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

[11] Accordingly, all these writ petitions being W.P.(C) Nos.499 of 2016, 415 of 2018 and 466 of 2016 and MC[WP(C)]Nos.65, 98, 99 and 100 of 2021 are disposed of. The Misc. Case in M.C.No.65 of 2021 is closed."

10. Alleging that the respondents in the writ petitions have

willfully disobeyed the order dated 22.4.2021, the respondents herein

have filed Contempt Case No.58 of 2021 on 05.7.2021. It is seen that

on 24.5.2021, the learned counsel for the respondents issued notice to

the contemnors for immediate compliance of the order dated 22.4.2021.

The end paragraph of the said notice dated 24.5.2021 reads as under:

"In the facts and circumstances stated above, I hereby give you this legal notice informing you that the claim of the humble petitioners be

MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 101 of 2021 Ref:-Cont.Cas(C) No. 58 of 2021 Page |7

consider for allotment of shops from amongst the 9 (nine) vacant shops lying in the New Thoubal in lieu of the shops that were acquired for construction of the New Thoubal Market and also in view of the series of orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Manipur and judgment and order dated 22 04-2021 passed in WP (C) No. 466 of 2016, 415 of 2018 and 499 of 2016, failing which, I have no alternative but to file the Contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment and order dated 22-04 2021 passed in WP (C) No. 466 of 2016, 415 of 2018 and 499 of 2016 above referred before the Hon'ble High Court, to meet the ends of justice and to protect the rule of law."

11. It appears that two days after the filing of the Contempt

Case, the contemnor herein issued an order dated 8.7.2021. The

operative portion of the order dated 8.7.2021 reads as under:

"Now, in view of the latter dated 05-07-2021 vide No. 8/Tbl/MUC/Misc/2016 along with the related documents submitted by the Revenue Officer, Thoubal Municipal Council it is hereby issued this order that the Thoubal Municipal Council would not be able to allot shops to Shri Akoljam Sanatomba

MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 101 of 2021 Ref:-Cont.Cas(C) No. 58 of 2021 Page |8

Singh, Smt. Akojam Manitombi Devi and Shri Akoljam Yaimachou @Yaimachou Singh as the 8 (eight) shops that they have claimed in their counsel's legal notice dated 24-05-2021 as the vacant shops are already occupied by the above mentioned shop occupants/occupiers. In other words, there are no vacant shops in the New Thoubal Market as claimed by the petitioners in their counsel's legal notice dated 24-04-2021

12. Admittedly, the order dated 8.7.2021 passed by the

contemnor is in compliance with the order dated 22.4.2021 passed in

the writ petitions. That apart, challenging the order dated 8.7.2021, the

respondents herein have also filed W.P.(C) No.493 of 2021 and the

same is pending.

13. According to the respondents, in W.P.(C) No.493 of 2021,

this Court granted interim stay on 6.8.2021 and therefore, the question

of compliance will not arise and the Contempt Case need not be closed.

Admittedly, the respondents herein have not filed any appeal against

the order dated 22.4.2021 passed in the writ petitions. At this juncture,

one thing needs to be mentioned that the original order is dated

22.4.2021 and in the said order, this Court has given eight weeks time

to consider the case of the respondents herein. However, within one

MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 101 of 2021 Ref:-Cont.Cas(C) No. 58 of 2021 Page |9

month and two days, the respondents herein issued a legal notice to

the alleged contemnors seeking to consider for allotment of shops from

amongst the nine vacant shops lying in the New Thoubal Market in lieu

of the shops that were acquired for construction of the New Thoubal

Market, failing which Contempt Petition will be filed for the willful and

deliberate disobedience of the order dated 22.4.2021. After issuance

of the said legal notice, on 5.7.2021 the respondents herein filed the

Contempt Case.

14. As stated supra, since the order dated 8.7.2021 issued by

the applicant is in compliance with the order dated 22.4.2021, the

applicant was right in contending that the order of this Court dated

22.4.2021 passed in the writ petitions has been duly complied with.

15. Mere disobedience or breach of the Court's order by the

person is not sufficient to constitute civil contempt. Such a

disobedience or breach must be willful, deliberate and intentional. In

order to exercise its power to punish the contemnor the Court has to be

satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the contemnor has willfully,

deliberately and intentionally violated the Court's order.

MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 101 of 2021 Ref:-Cont.Cas(C) No. 58 of 2021 P a g e | 10

16. No Court, including the Contempt Court is entitled to take

trivialities and technicalities into account while finding fault with the

conduct of the person against whom contempt proceeding is taken.

17. Where the order has been substantially complied with and

a reasonable explanation has been provided for the delay in compliance

with the order, the contempt will not lie as the violation is not willful and

deliberate.

18. In the instant case, there is no proof to show that the

contemnor has willfully, deliberately and intentionally violated the

Court's order. In fact, the applicant being the contemnor has passed

the order on 8.7.2021. Though the original order is dated 22.4.2021

and eight weeks time has been granted to the contemnors to consider

the claim of the respondents herein and the compliance order came to

be passed only on 8.7.2021 beyond the eight weeks period, the short

delay in passing the order dated 8.7.2021 cannot go against the

applicant/contemnor. Since the order of this Court dated 22.4.2021 has

been substantially complied with, the question of contempt will not lie.

19. As stated supra, challenging the order dated 8.7.2021, the

respondents herein have filed W.P.(C) No.493 of 2021 and the same is

pending and it is for the respondents to pursue the said writ petition.

MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 101 of 2021 Ref:-Cont.Cas(C) No. 58 of 2021 P a g e | 11

The interim order, if any passed in the said writ petition will have no

bearing in keeping the Contempt Case pending. That apart, the

veracity and the legality of passing the order dated 8.7.2021 canvassed

by the respondents cannot be gone into in the present proceedings.

20. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the Contempt

Cas(C) No. 58 of 2021 produced the above two judgments - 1) 1995

Supp (4) SCC 465 (Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. & Anr. Vs.

Sachidanand Dass & Anr.) and 2) (1992) 4 SCC 167 (State of J and

K Vs. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan and Others) and the said judgments are

not applicable to this case since the case in hand the writ petition order

was not challenged by either the petitioner in the contempt petition or

the respondents but the petitioner in contempt petition alone has

challenged the subsequent compliance order dated 08.07.2021 by way

of fresh writ petition in WP(C) No. 493 of 2021 and obtained an order of

interim stay. Therefore, both these judgments cited by the learned

counsel for the petitioner in Contempt Cas(C) No. 58 of 2021 are not

applicable to the present MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 101 of 2021.

21. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order dated

22.4.2021 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.466, 499 of 2016 and 415 of 2018

has been duly complied with by the applicant and resultantly, the

MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 101 of 2021 Ref:-Cont.Cas(C) No. 58 of 2021 P a g e | 12

Contempt Case No.58 of 2021 is liable to be closed as substantial

compliance has taken place.

22. In the result, M.C.(Cont. Case) No.101 of 2021 is allowed

and consequently, the Contempt Case No.58 of 2021 is closed.

23. Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the

parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail.

JUDGE

FR/NFR Sushil

MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 101 of 2021 Ref:-Cont.Cas(C) No. 58 of 2021