Manipur High Court
P. Nengkhanchin vs State Of Manipur on 16 November, 2021
KABORAMB Digitally signed
by
AM KABORAMBAM
SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH (Through Video Conferencing)
Date: 2021.11.17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
SINGH 15:50:27 +05'30' AT IMPHAL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2021
WITH MC(WA) NO. 86 OF 2021
P. Nengkhanchin, aged about 51 years, S/o
Ginkhnam, R/o Goukhenpau Road, Vengnuam,
New Lamka, Churachandpur Sub-Division, P.O
& P.S. New Lamka, Churachandpur District,
Manipur-795128 and 7 others
... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Manipur, represented by the Additional
Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of
Manipur, Secretariat Building, Babupara, PO &
PS-Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795001 and 6 others
... Respondents
WRIT APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2021
WITH MC(WA) NO. 87 OF 2021
P. Nengkhanchin, aged about 51 years, S/o
Ginkhnam, R/o Goukhenpau Road, Vengnuam,
New Lamka, Churachandpur Sub-Division, P.O
& P.S. New Lamka, Churachandpur District,
Manipur-795128 and 7 others
... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Manipur represented by the Additional
Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of
Manipur Secretariat Building, Babupara, PO &
PS-Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795001 and 6 others
... Respondents
Page 1
BEFORE
HON'BLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M V MURALIDARAN
For the Appellants : Mr. D.Julius Riamei, Advocate.
For Respondents 4 &5 : Ms. S. Thoithoi Meitei, Advocate
Date of Order : 16.11.2021.
ORDER (ORAL)
(Sanjay Kumar, CJ)
The unsuccessful petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 222 and 251 of
2021 are in appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 03.09.2021 passed
by a learned Judge of this Court, dismissing both the writ petitions.
2. The provisions of the Manipur Village Authorities in Hill Areas
Act, 1956 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1956'), fell for consideration in these cases.
Broadly, the question that arose was whether the provisions of the Act of
1956 authorize removal of the elected Chairman and the Secretary of a
Village Authority from such posts, by way of a resolution passed by the other
members of the Village Authority. Steps having been taken by members of
the Vengnuam South Village Authority to remove the elected Chairman and
the Secretary, viz., respondents No.4 and 5 in these appeals, this question
came into focus. The Government of Manipur however issued a clarification,
vide letter dated 24.02.2021, that the Act of 1956 did not provide for
replacement of the members of the Village Authority and that such members
were not to be removed other than under Section 8 of the Act of 1956. The
Government further stated that the Vengnuam South Village Authority would
remain functional under the Chairmanship of respondent No. 4 and
Page 2
Secretaryship of respondent No. 5. Aggrieved by this clarificatory
communication, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No. 222 of 2021. While so,
acting upon the aforestated communication dated 24.02.2021, the Deputy
Commissioner, Churachandpur issued order dated 27.02.2021 restoring the
Chairmanship and Secretaryship of respondents No. 4 and 5 respectively in
Vengnuam South Village Authority. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed
W.P.(C) No. 251 of 2021. However, the learned Judge found no merit in
these cases and dismissed them. Hence, these appeals.
3. Heard Mr. Julius Riamei, learned counsel for the appellants,
and Mr. Thoithoi Meitei, learned counsel for the contesting respondents No.4
and 5.
4. Village Authorities are constituted under Section 3 of the Act
of 1956. It states that in every village, having 20 or more tax-paying houses,
a Village Authority is to be constituted. The number of members thereof
depends upon the number of tax-paying houses in the village. Section 3(4)
of the Act of 1956 provides that where there is a Chief or Khullakpa in the
village, he would be the ex-officio Chairman of the Village Authority of that
village but in the event there is no such Chief or Khullakpa in the village, the
Chairman of the Village Authority would be elected by the members of the
Village Authority from amongst themselves.
Respondent No.4 in these appeals accordingly became the
Chairman of the Vengnuam South Village Authority.
Page 3
5. The Act of 1956 does not speak of the post of Secretary in a
Village Authority but it appears that, by way of convention, the members of
a Village Authority elect from amongst themselves one person to hold the
post of Secretary, as the Chief or Khullakpa of the village may not be literate
or familiar with administrative processes. Respondent No.5 seems to have
been elected the Secretary of the Vengnuam South Village Authority as per
this convention.
6. Mr. Julius Riamei, learned counsel, would concede that there
is no provision in the Act of 1956 for removal of an elected Chairman or a
Secretary of the Village Authority from office. He would however contend
that Section 8 of the Act of 1956, which deals with removal of members of a
Village Authority, should be given a wider interpretation so as to include the
power to remove from office an elected Chairman or a Secretary of the
Village Authority.
7. Section 8 of the Act of 1956 is titled, 'Power to remove
members of Village Authorities'. It states that the Deputy Commissioner may
remove any member of a Village Authority from office on the grounds
mentioned therein. One of the grounds provided is when the member is guilty
of misconduct in the discharge of his duties or of any disgraceful conduct
and two-thirds of the total number of members of the Village Authority
recommend his removal at a meeting. The provision therefore speaks of
removal from the very membership of the Village Authority and not from any
post held therein. In the cases on hand, it is the admitted position that
respondents No. 4 and 5 continued to be members of the Vengnuam South
Page 4
Village Authority and the attempt by the other members was only to remove
them from the elected post of Chairman and Secretary respectively of the
Village Authority. The exercise undertaken for this limited purpose clearly
does not fall within the ambit of Section 8 of the Act of 1956. In the event,
the Chairman or Secretary of a Village Authority commit any misconduct or
are guilty of disgraceful conduct, the proper course, as per the statute, is for
the other members of the Village Authority to remove them altogether from
the membership of the Village Authority, if they have the requisite numbers.
The learned Judge also held to this effect in para 13 of the
Judgment and Order, presently under appeal. We therefore find no grounds
whatsoever to interfere with the cogent analysis and correct conclusion of
the learned Judge to this effect.
8. Mr. Julius Riamei, learned counsel, would state that after the
passing of the impugned Judgment and Order, steps were taken
independently by members of the Vengnuam South Village Authority to
remove the Chairman and the Secretary, viz., respondents No.4 and 5, from
the membership of the said Village Authority and the same was the subject
matter of W.P.(C) No. 767 of 2021. The said writ petition is stated to have
been disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner,
Churachandpur, to take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with
law, by way of a speaking decision.
9. On the above analysis, we find no cause made out for
interference in these appeals, except for reiterating that the proper measure
Page 5
to be taken by members of a Village Authority, if they have a redressable
grievance against the Chairman or Secretary of such Village Authority, is to
take recourse to Section 8 of the Act of 1956 and abide by the procedure
prescribed therein.
The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed.
In consequence, the stay applications in MC (WA) No. 86 of
2021 and MC(WA) No.87 of 2021 are also dismissed.
In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
A copy of this order shall be supplied online or through
whatsapp to the learned counsel for the parties.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
bidya
Page 6
