Manipur High Court
Shri Gainaichung Malangmei vs The State Of Manipur on 4 April, 2022
KABORA Digitally signed
by
MBAM KABORAMBAM (Through video-conferencing)
SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH
Date: 2022.04.04
SINGH 16:02:07 +05'30' IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC (W.A.) No. 70 of 2022
Shri Gainaichung Malangmei, aged about 87 years, S/o (Late)
Poudongui, resident of Pongringlong Village (New Cachar Road).
P.S. - Gamnom Saparmeina P.O. Noney, District
Kangpokpi - 795159.
...Applicant/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur, represented by
Commissioner/Additional Chief Secretary (TA & Hills),
Government of Manipur, Secretariat, Babupara, Imphal
West - 795001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Senapati District, P.O. & P.S.
Senapati, Manipur - 795106.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Saitu Gamphazol, Senapati
District, Manipur - 795107.
4. Mr. Lanirei Daimei (Dead) s/o Late Meichingdunnang Daimei,
a resident of Pongringlong Village (New Cachar Road), P.S.
Gamnom Saparmeina P.O. - Noney, District
Kangpokpi - 795159.
4(a) Smt. Ningthoulu Daimei, aged about 75 years, w/o Mr.
(Late) Lanirei Daimei, a resident of Pongringlong Village
(New Cachar Road), P.S. Gamnom Saparmeina, P.O.
Noney, District Kangpokpi - 795159.
4(b) Shri Disinrei Francis Xavier, aged about 48 years, s/o
Mr. (Late) Lanirei Daimei, a resident of Pongringlong
Village (New Cachar Road), P.S. Gamnom Saparmeina,
P.O. Noney, District Kangpokpi - 795159.
4(c) Shri Sajalung Daimei, aged about 38 years, s/o Mr.
(Late) Lanirei Daimei, a resident of Pongringlong Village
(New Cachar Road), P.S. Gamnom Saparmeina, P.O.
Noney, District Kangpokpi - 795159.
4(d) Shri D. Gailungpou Rongmei, aged about 38 years, s/o
Mr. (Late) Lanirei Daimei, a resident of Pongringlong
MC (W.A.) No. 70 of 2022 Page 1
Village (New Cachar Road), P.S. Gamnom Saparmeina,
P.O. Noney, District Kangpokpi - 795159.
.......impleaded as respondents No 4(a), 4(b), 4(c) and
4(d) vide order dated 25.03.2022 passed in MC (W.A.)
No. 105 of 2022.
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi District,
Kangpokpi - 795129.
6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kangchup Geljang, Kangpokpi
District - 795146.
... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR
For the Applicant : Mr. Serto T Kom, Advocate
For Respondents 1,2,3, 5 & 6 : Mr. M. Rarry, Addl. Advocate General
For the LRs of Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Julius Riamei, Advocate
Date of reserving of Order : 01.04.2022
Date of delivery of Order : 04.04.2022
ORDER (CAV)
Sanjay Kumar (C.J.):
[1] The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 934 of 2016 seeks condonation of
delay in the filing of an appeal against a direction passed therein. The delay on
his part is 893 days in all, as the judgment under appeal was passed as long
back as on 13.09.2019. However, he excluded the normal limitation period of
30 days for filing an appeal apart from 11 days, from 13.09.2019 to
24.09.2019, taken to obtain a certified copy of the judgment. He then
excluded 708 days covered by the dates, 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, in terms
MC (W.A.) No. 70 of 2022 Page 2
of the order of the Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of
Limitation. In effect, the applicant quantified the number of days of delay to
be condoned as 143 days.
[2] Notice having been ordered, Mr. M. Rarry, learned Additional
Advocate General, Manipur, appeared for respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6.
Mr. Julius Riamei, learned counsel, appeared for the legal representatives of
respondent No. 4, shown as respondents No. 4(a) to 4(d).
[3] Heard arguments advanced by Mr. Serto T Kom, learned counsel
for the applicant, and both the learned opposing counsel.
[4] At the outset, it may be noted that though Mr. Serto T Kom,
learned counsel, would contend that the importance of the issue sought to be
raised in the appeal should also weigh with this Court while considering this
condone delay application, we are not inclined to accept such a sweeping
statement. No doubt, Courts would be inclined to overlook technicalities when
the cause of justice and larger public interest requires that a liberal approach
be adopted but that would not entitle a somnolent litigant to seek to turn back
the clock without reference to his own careless and lackadaisical conduct in
prosecuting the litigation. Certain facts brought out by the learned opposing
counsel would indicate that the applicant falls in this category.
[5] Be it noted that Direction No. 3 in para 42 of the judgment and
order dated 13.09.2019 in W.P. (C) No. 934 of 2016, which is presently the
cause for grievance and for the filing of a belated appeal, required the State
authorities "to conduct election for the Village Authority of Khullakpa
Pongringlong of (Charoipandongba) village in accordance with law within a
period of three months...........".
MC (W.A.) No. 70 of 2022 Page 3
[6] Pursuant to this direction, the authorities issued order dated
04.11.2019 directing that the election should be held in terms of the judgment
and order dated 13.09.2019. Aggrieved by this development, the applicant
filed MC [W.P. (C)] No. 288 of 2019 and MC [W.P. (C)] No. 279 of 2019 in the
disposed of writ petition. In MC [W.P. (C)] No. 288 of 2019, his prayer was to
stay the operation of the order dated 04.11.2019 while his prayer in MC [W.P.
(C)] No. 279 of 2019 was to amend the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019
to the effect that 'Khullakpa' should not be included in the election, as he had
already been recognized as the 'Ex-Officio Chairman/Khullakpa' of
Pongringlong Hill Village.
[7] Both these miscellaneous cases were dismissed as withdrawn by
the learned Judge vide order dated 15.11.2019. In para 5 of the said order,
the learned Judge recorded to the effect that the petitioner therein, viz., the
applicant, could challenge the order dated 13.09.2019 by way of an appeal or
a review but without doing so, he had filed miscellaneous applications for
modification, which were not maintainable. The learned Judge accordingly
permitted withdrawal of both the miscellaneous cases with liberty.
[8] Thereafter, Notice dated 22.11.2019 was issued by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Kangchup Geljang, naming the officials who were to
conduct the election in terms of the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019.
The Sub-Divisional Officer directed that the Village Authority Election/Khullakpa
should be held in respect of Pongringlong (Charoipandongba) village as per
rule. Assailing this Notice, the applicant filed W.P. (C) No. 948 of 2019 before
this Court. However, the writ petition was dismissed on 28.11.2019 and the
said order was also allowed to attain finality. Significantly, the learned counsel
MC (W.A.) No. 70 of 2022 Page 4
who had appeared for the applicant informed the Court that he was not
'aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019' and that the
directions of the Court had been misconstrued by the authorities who had
wrongly issued the Notice dated 22.11.2019 directing that the election be held
for the post of 'Khullakpa' of Pongringlong (Charoipandongba) village.
[9] The election was then held by the authorities and respondent
No. 4 herein was elected as the 'Khullakpa' of the village. Order dated
13.12.2019 was issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (TA & Hills),
Government of Manipur, according approval to the declaration of the elected
members of the Village Authority and respondent No. 4 as the 'Khullakpa'.
[10] Aggrieved thereby, the applicant filed W.P. (C) No. 103 of 2020.
This writ petition was dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court on
11.02.2020. Against the said order, the applicant filed W.A. No. 12 of 2020. It
was during the course of hearing of arguments in this writ appeal that Mr. M.
Rarry, learned Additional Advocate General, Manipur, highlighted the fact that
the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019 had attained finality and that it was
not open to the applicant to reopen any issue covered thereby and more
particularly, the direction to hold an election. Taking a cue therefrom, it
appears that the present attempt is being made by the applicant to prop up a
belated appeal against the said judgment and order.
[11] The above sequence of events indicates that the applicant was
well aware of the fact that the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019 caused
him injury and that was the reason why he sought modification thereof by
filing a miscellaneous case. Strangely, despite this Court sensitizing him of the
necessity of filing either a review petition or an appeal against the said order,
MC (W.A.) No. 70 of 2022 Page 5
he did not choose to take any steps at that time. He then tried to maintain an
independent writ petition against the consequential Notice dated 22.11.2019 in
relation to the election to be held. However, the said writ petition was also
dismissed and he chose not to take the matter further by filing an appeal.
[12] Significantly, he also went on record in that case and stated that
he had no grievance with the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019! Having
stated so in clear terms, it is not open to the applicant to now retract
therefrom or claim ignorance of law. It is equally not open to him to blame his
former counsel and claim that a change of counsel would entitle him to change
his stand. Having filed several cases, the applicant cannot bank on his 'lack of
education' and seek indulgence from this Court to overlook not only the delay
on his part in filing an appeal but also his past conduct.
[13] As pointed out by the Supreme Court in G. Ramegowda, Major
and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore [(1988) 2
SCC 142], no general principle can be laid down to save a party from all
mistakes of its counsel and if there is negligence, deliberate or gross inaction
or lack of bonafides on the part of a party or its counsel, there is no reason
why the opposite side should be exposed to a time-barred appeal. The
Supreme Court further pointed out that each case would have to be
considered on the particularities of its own special facts.
[14] The observation of the Supreme Court in Raja Jagdambika
Pratap Narain Singh Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and others
[(1975) 4 SCC 578], that a legal system and especially one evolving in a
developing country may permit judges to play a creative role and innovate to
ensure justice without doing violence to the norms set by legislation, does not
MC (W.A.) No. 70 of 2022 Page 6
benefit the applicant. Rule 3(2) of Chapter IVA of the High Court of Manipur
Rues, 2019, permits condonation of delay in the filing of an appeal only if
'good and sufficient cause' is shown. This is in keeping with the mandate of
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. That is presently wanting.
[15] Further, as pointed out by the Supreme Court recently in Union
of India and others Vs. N. Murugesan and others [(2022) 2 SCC 25],
acquiescence presupposes knowledge against a particular act and once such a
situation arises, it is not open to a party that acquiesces itself to insist upon
compliance of original terms. It was pointed that what is essential is the
conduct of the parties and when acquiescence is followed by delay, it may
become laches. The Supreme Court further held that the concept of
acquiescence has to be seen on a case-to-case basis.
[16] Applying that standard to the case on hand, it is clear that the
applicant disentitled himself from seeking indulgence in overlooking the delay
on his part in filing an appeal due to his past conduct and for clear lack of
'good and sufficient cause' for the delay.
MC (W.A.) No. 70 of 2020 is therefore dismissed.
In consequence, the unnumbered writ appeal shall stand
rejected.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Sandeep
MC (W.A.) No. 70 of 2022 Page 7
