Manipur High Court
The State Of Manipur vs Shri Kh. Merajao Singh on 21 February, 2022
KABORA Digitally
by
signed
Item No. 8 & 9
MBAM KABORAMBAM
SANDEEP SINGH
(Through Video Conferencing)
SANDEEP Date: IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
2022.02.22
SINGH 16:57:32 +05'30' AT IMPHAL
MC (W.A.) No. 2 of 2019
With
W.A. No. 1 of 2019
1. The State of Manipur, through the Chief Secretary - cum -
Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, Imphal.
2. The Director General of Police, and its Office at Police Head
Quarter, Babupara, Imphal- 795001.
3. The Inspector General of Police, Manipur, and its Office at Police
Head Quarter, Babupara, Imphal - 795001.
4. The Commandant, 7th Battalion (erstwhile 9thBattalioin), Manipur
Rifles, Govt. of Manipur, Khabeisoi, P.O. Pangei & P.S.
Heingang, Manipur - 795114.
... Applicants/Appellants
- Versus -
Shri Kh. Merajao Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o (Late) Kh. Apabi
Singh, resident of Awang Sekmai, P.O. & P.S. Awang Sekmai,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
...Respondent/Writ Petitioner
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN
For the applicants/appellants : Mr. Samarjit Hawaibam, G.A.
For the respondent : Mr. A. Mohendro, Advocate
Date of Order : 21.02.2022
MC (W.A.) No. 2 of 2019 with
W.A. No. 1 of 2019 Page 1
ORDER (ORAL)
Sanjay Kumar (C.J.):
[1] By Judgment & Order dated 09.05.2017, a learned Judge of this
Court allowed W.P. (C) No. 686 of 2015 and directed the respondents therein to
convert the order of dismissal from service passed against the writ petitioner into
any other minor penalty so that he could be deemed to be in service continuously
only for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The learned Judge clarified that the
writ petitioner would not be entitled to arrears of pay or any benefits for the period
1995 upto 2009 but the said period should be counted for the purpose of
pensionary benefits only. Aggrieved by these directions, the respondents in the
said writ petition, viz., the State of Manipur and its police authorities, filed W.A.
No. 1 of 2019. As they did so beyond the stipulated limitation period, MC (W.A.)
No. 2 of 2019 was filed by them seeking condonation of the delay of 552 days in
the presentation of the appeal.
[2] Heard Mr. Samarjit Hawaibam, learned Government Advocate,
appearing for the applicants/appellants; and Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel for
the respondent/writ petitioner.
[3] Before seeking adjudication of the appeal on merits, the applicants/
appellants must first satisfy this Court that the delay on their part in preferring the
appeal should be condoned. Para 4 of the condone delay application sets out the
reasons and the justification for the delay. It is stated therein that, on 14.06.2017,
the Police Department addressed the Administrative Department seeking a
decision on the Judgment & Order under appeal. Be it noted that the said
Judgment was passed more than a month prior to that day, i.e., on 09.05.2017. It
MC (W.A.) No. 2 of 2019 with
W.A. No. 1 of 2019 Page 2
is then stated that, from 07.07.2017 to 27.05.2018, the matter was examined at
various levels of the State Government. Then, from 28.05.2018 to 08.06.2018, it
was stated that working of the State Secretariat was disturbed due to a strike.
Again, from 01.07.2018 to 15.09.2018, the Home Department is stated to have
examined the matter at various levels. It was only on 25.09.2018 that the Home
Department took a decision to prefer an appeal. A certified copy of the Judgment
under appeal was applied for on 19.11.2018, though the decision to file an appeal
was taken nearly two months earlier on 25.09.2018. Thereafter, the file moved
from level to level and the appeal ultimately came to be filed in January, 2019.
Hence, the delay of 552 days.
[4] The aforestated sequence of events clearly manifests that the
applicants/appellants routinely indulged in their usual administrative red-tape and
were not at all diligent in pursuing the matter so that the appeal could be filed
expeditiously. Though it is not necessary for an applicant to explain each
individual day's delay, it is not permissible for a bonafide applicant to state that
the matter was being examined at various levels over a period of more than ten
months without elaborating on further details. It may be noted that the condone
delay petition records that the matter was being examined at various levels from
07.07.2017 to 27.05.2018! To compound matters further, the delay in applying for
a certified copy even after deciding to file an appeal clearly demonstrates the
magnitude of the lack of care and caution on the part of the applicants/appellants
in taking steps. Though administrative processes are to be expected from the
Government and its departments, it does not mean that they can use the same as
a convenient excuse to justify unconscionably long delays on their part in
MC (W.A.) No. 2 of 2019 with
W.A. No. 1 of 2019 Page 3
preferring appeals, despite being well aware of the limitation period stipulated
therefor by the law.
The casualness of the applicants/appellants in the filing of the
present appeal, which is writ large, clearly disentitles them from seeking
indulgence from this Court. We therefore find no grounds to condone the long and
practically unexplained delay in the filing of the appeal.
MC (W.A.) No. 2 of 2019 is accordingly dismissed.
In consequence, W.A. No. 1 of 2019 shall also stand dismissed
without adjudication on merits.
We, however, 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
Sandeep
MC (W.A.) No. 2 of 2019 with
W.A. No. 1 of 2019 Page 4
