Manipur High Court
The Office Of The Lokayukta ... vs Shri Thokchom Kaminimohon Singh on 30 May, 2022
Digitally signed
[1]
SHOUGRA by
KPAM SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA
DEVANAN SINGH IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
DA SINGH Date: 2022.05.30
10:28:07 +01'00'
AT IMPHAL
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022
(Ref:- WP(C) No. 161 of 2022)
The Office of the Lokayukta Manipur through its Secretary having its
office at 3rd Floor, Directorate Complex 2nd M.R. Gate, North A.O.C.,
Imphal, Imphal East District, Manipur, Pin - 795005.
...Applicant
-Versus -
1. Shri Thokchom Kaminimohon Singh, aged about 66 years, S/o (L)
Th. Tonjam Singh, the then E.E./Transmission Construction Division
No. 1, now re-engaged as General Manager, MSPCL, resident of
Wangkhei Ayangpalli near Leima Keithel, P.O. & P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur, Pin - 795005.
2. Shri Manoharmayum Budhachandra Sharma, aged about 65 years,
S/o (L) M. Brajamani Sharma, the then E.E./Sub-Station
Construction Division No. II (now re-engaged as General Manager,
MSPCL), resident of Kwakeithel Moirangpurel Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin - 795008.
....Principal Respondents
3. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary to the
Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat at Babupara, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
4. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary (Power) to the
Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat at Babupara, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
5. The Manipur State Power Company Ltd. (MSPCL) represented by
its Managing Director having its office at Keishampat Junction, P.O.
& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
6. Shri Thiyam Nirosh Singh, aged about 48 years of Singjamei
Chingamakha Meisnam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West,
Manipur-795008.
7. Smt. Lucy Haokip, General Manager (Finance & Accounts), MSPCL,
now working as Treasury Officer, Imphal West at Treasury Office at
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[2]
Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795004.
8. Shri Ranendra Nandeibam, General Manager (Finance & Accounts)
MSPCL, Keishampat Junction, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001.
9. Shri Thokchom Bimol Singh, DGM/Sub-Station Division No. III,
MSPCL, Keishampat Junction, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001.
10. Shri A. Rajendra Sharma, the then AE/Lokchao Sub-Station (now
re-engaged as DGM/Transmission Div. No. III, MSPCL, Keishampat
Junction, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
11. Shri Y. Chandramani Singh, the then AE Sub-Station Sub-Division
No. III (now retired), resident of Wangkhei Lourembam Leikai, P.O.
Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
12. Shri Gurumayum Tapan Kumar Sharma, Manager (Electrical),
MSPCL SDD-III, Keishampat Junction, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur-795001.
13. Shri Lunkholal Lupho, Manager, Sub-Division XI, TD-III, MSPCL at
Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795001.
14. Shri O. Yaiskul Singh, the then S.O. Transmission Contruction Div.
No. 1 (now retired), resident of Thongju Koirou, Manipur University
Gate, P.O. Canchipur & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal East District,
Manipur-795003.
15. M/S Shyama Power (India) Pvt. Ltd. Though its General Manager
having its registered office at 15 & 16 Hartron Complex, Electronic
City, Sector-18 (part) Gurgaon-122015, Haryana (India).
... Proforma Respondents
-AND-
IN THE MATTER OF:
WP(C) No. 161 of 2022
1. Shri Thokchom Kaminimohon Singh, aged about 66 years, S/o (L)
Th. Tonjam Singh, the then E.E./Transmission Construction Division
No. 1, now re-engaged as General Manager, MSPCL, resident of
Wangkhei Ayangpalli near Leima Keithel, P.O. & P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur, Pin - 795005.
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[3]
2. Shri Manoharmayum Budhachandra Sharma, aged about 65 years,
S/o (L) M. Brajamani Sharma, the then E.E./Sub-Station
Construction Division No. II (now re-engaged as General Manager,
MSPCL), resident of Kwakeithel Moirangpurel Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin - 795008.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Office of the Lokayukta Manipur through its Secretary having
its office at 3rd Floor, Directorate Complex 2nd M.R. Gate, North
A.O.C., Imphal, Imphal East District, Manipur, Pin - 795005;
2. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary to the
Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat at Babupara, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
3. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary (Power) to the
Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat at Babupara, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
4. The Manipur State Power Company Ltd. (MSPCL) represented
by its Managing Director having its office at Keishampat Junction,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
5. Shri Thiyam Nirosh Singh, aged about 48 years of Singjamei
Chingamakha Meisnam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal
West, Manipur-795008.
... Principal Respondents
6. Smt. Lucy Haokip, General Manager (Finance & Accounts),
MSPCL, now working as Treasury Officer, Imphal West at
Treasury Office at Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal
West District, Manipur-795004.
7. Shri Ranendra Nandeibam, General Manager (Finance &
Accounts) MSPCL, Keishampat Junction, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
8. Shri Thokchom Bimol Singh, DGM/Sub-Station Division No. III,
MSPCL, Keishampat Junction, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001.
9. Shri A. Rajendra Sharma, the then AE/Lokchao Sub-Station
(now re-engaged as DGM/Transmission Div. No. III, MSPCL,
Keishampat Junction, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[4]
10. Shri Y. Chandramani Singh, the then AE Sub-Station Sub-
Division No. III (now retired), resident of Wangkhei Lourembam
Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District,
Manipur-795001.
11. Shri Gurumayum Tapan Kumar Sharma, Manager (Electrical),
MSPCL SDD-III, Keishampat Junction, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
12. Shri Lunkholal Lupho, Manager, Sub-Division XI, TD-III, MSPCL
at Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
13. Shri O. Yaiskul Singh, the then S.O. Transmission Contruction
Div. No. 1 (now retired), resident of Thongju Koirou, Manipur
University Gate, P.O. Canchipur & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal East
District, Manipur-795003.
14. M/S Shyama Power (India) Pvt. Ltd. Though its General Manager
having its registered office at 15 & 16 Hartron Complex,
Electronic City, Sector-18 (part) Gurgaon-122015, Haryana
(India).
...Proforma Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Applicant :: Mr. M. Rarry, Advocate
For the respondents :: Mr. Gurukrishnakumar Subramaniam
asstd. by Mr. Abdulrahiman Tamboli;
Mr. N. Ibotombi, senior Advocate;
Mr. H. S. Paonam, senior Advocate,
Mr. H. Ishwarlal, senior Advocate;
Mr. N. Jotendro, senior Advocate asstd.
by Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Advocate &
Mr. H. Debendra, Govt. Advocate
Date of Hearing :: 24-05-2022
Date of Order :: 30-05-2022
O R D E R
[1] Heard Mr. M. Rarry, learned counsel appearing for the applicant,
Mr. Gurukrishnakumar Subramaniam, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. Abdulrahiman Tamboli, learned counsel, Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned
senior counsel, Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel, Mr. H. Ishwarlal,
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[5]
learned senior counsel, Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel assisted
by Mr. Piyush Beriwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
Heard also, Mr. H. Debendra, learned Government appearing for the State
respondents.
[2] The present application had been filed by the Office of the
Lokayuka, Manipur through its Secretary with a prayer for directing the
High Court registry to list the connected writ petitions before the Hon'ble
Chief Justice on the administrative side for placing the matter before a
larger bench of this court.
Before considering the merits of the present application and the
rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the
parties, the facts which culminate to re-hearing of the present application
are briefly stated hereunder -
[3] Three writ petitions viz., WP(C) No. 161 of 2022, WP(C) No. 168
of 2022 and WP(C) No. 171 of 2022 were filed by different petitioners
before this court challenging the judgment and order dated 07-02-2022
passed by the Manipur Lokayukta in Complaint Case No. 2 of 2020 and
praying for quashing and setting aside the said impugned judgment and
order.
Initially the said three writ petitions were listed before a Division
Bench of this court consisting of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Justice M.V.
Muralidaran, however by an order dated 07-03-2022 passed by the said
Division Bench in the aforesaid three writ petitions, the registry was
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[6]
directed to list the matters before a Single Bench on 09-03-2022. The
Office of the Lokayukta, Manipur filed the present application on
10-03-2022 and the matter was heard on 12-04-2022. By an order dated
18-04-2022, the present application was dismissed on the ground that as
the Division Bench of this court comprising of the Hon'ble Chief Justice had
already passed a judicial order on 07-03-2022 in the connected writ
petitions directing for listing the said writ petitions before a Single Bench of
this court, this court is bound by the said order and that if any order is
passed by this court as prayed for by the applicant in the present
application, such order will not only be contrary or conflicting to the order
dated 07-03-2022 passed by the Division Bench in the connected writ
petitions, but such order will also be a nullity as this court has no jurisdiction
or power to pass any order which have the effect of superseding or
over-riding the order passed by a Division Bench of this court.
[4] The present applicant assailed the said order dated 18-04-2022
passed by this court in the present application by filing a Writ Appeal No. 62
of 2022. The said Writ Appeal was allowed by the Appellate Court by an
order dated 17-05-2022. In the said order, the Appellate Court made a
clarification that the earlier order dated 07-03-2022 for listing the aforesaid
three writ petitions before a Single Bench was passed by the Appellate Court
upon being informed that there was no necessity in terms of Rule 3(1) of
Chapter IV-A of the Manipur High Court Rules, 2019 for listing the writ
petitions filed against the orders of the Lokayukta, Manipur before a Division
Bench and that the said order would not impair or impede upon the right of
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[7]
the learned Single Judge to exercise power under Rule 3(1)(d) of Chapter
IV-A of the High Court Rules, 2019, if he so chooses.
The Appellate Court further observed that it would always be open
to a learned Single Judge to refer the matter for consideration by a Division
Bench, if he is of the opinion that it warrants such consideration. With the
aforesaid clarifications and observations, the Appellate Court set aside the
order under appeal and remitted the present application to this court for
re-consideration on its own merit. Hence, the present application is again
taken up for re-consideration on its own merit as directed by the Appellate
Court.
[5] Mr. M. Rarry, learned counsel appearing for the applicant
submitted that under Rule 3(1)(d) of Chapter IV-A of the High Court of
Manipur Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "HC Rules" for short), a
Single Bench is empowered to refer any application to the Hon'ble Chief
Justice for placing it before a Division Bench having regard to the
importance or complexity of the case. For ready reference, the provisions of
Rule 3(1) of the HC Rules are reproduced hereunder:-
"3(1) Every such application shall be made and heard
before the Single Bench except where the Chief Justice
otherwise directs:
Provided that such application falling within any
one or more of the following categories shall be heard by
a Division Bench except where the Chief Justice otherwise
directs:
(a) Public Interest Litigation;
(b) Habeas Corpus Application;
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[8]
(c) Application relating to externment or deportation;
(d) Any application which a Single Judge may refer to the
Chief Justice for placing it before the Division Bench
having regard to the importance or complexity of the
case.
(e) Writ petition in which constitutional validity of any
Act, Rules or any provisions thereof have been
challenged."
[6] The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Manipur
Lokayukta passed the impugned judgment and order after taking into
consideration a very voluminous preliminary enquiry report (running about
1000 pages) and after finding a prima facie case and in fact, the said
preliminary enquiry was treated as O.E. for registering the connected FIR
against the writ petitioners. The Manipur Lokayukta passed the impugned
order solely in public interest and there will be wide ramifications or impact
in public interest if the impugned judgment and order of the Manipur
Lokayukta is interfered with by this court in the connected writ petitions. The
learned counsel strenuously submitted that the fact and law involved in the
connected writ petitions are very complex in nature and also has wide public
importance. The learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that the connected
writ petitions are fit cases for referring it to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for
placing it before a Division Bench. Alternatively, the learned counsel
submitted that without considering the importance or complexity of the case,
this court should refer the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for taking a
decision as to whether the said writ petitions should be placed before a
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[9]
Division Bench or not since the Hon'ble Chief Justice is the master of roster
and the final authority to decide the matter.
[7] It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant
that any application/ appeal assailing the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal or Family Court are placed before a Division Bench
of this court and that under the Rules of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
High Court of Telangana, Tripura High Court, etc., any application / petition
challenging the order of the Loyayukta is to be placed before a Division
Bench. Similarly, the High Court of Manipur should have incorporated such
a provision in its rules, however, while framing the High Court of Manipur
Rules, 2019, it has inadvertently not mentioned the manner in which a
petition challenging the order passed by the Manipur Lokayukta is to be
heard.
[8] The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in an earlier
round of litigation between the same parties and in respect of the same
complaint case pending before the Lokayukta, a writ petition being WP(C)
No. 899 of 2021 was filed in this High Court and that on the submissions
made by the counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Single Judge of
this court passed an order on 13-12-2021 in the aforesaid writ petition
directing the registry of this court to list the matter before the Hon'ble Chief
Justice on the administrative side for appropriate orders and that the Hon'ble
Chief Justice directed the registry for listing the said writ petition before a
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[10]
Division Bench and subsequently, the said writ petition was heard by a
Division Bench and dismissed the same on merit on 20-12-2021.
[9] Mr. M. Rarry, learned counsel further submitted that judicial
discipline and judicial propriety demands that courts of co-ordinate
jurisdiction should have consistent opinions in respect of an identical set of
facts or on a question of law and that if courts expressed different opinion
on the identical set of facts or question of law while exercising the same
jurisdiction, than instead of achieving harmony in the judicial system, it will
lead to judicial anarchy. The learned counsel submitted that if this court did
not agree with the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court on
13-12-2021 in WP(C) No. 899 of 2021, judicial discipline and practice
require this court to refer the issue to a larger bench and that it will not be
proper to over-rule the earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge of
this court. In view of the above, it has been submitted by Mr. M. Rarry,
learned counsel that it will be just and proper for this court to refer the
connected writ petitions before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placing it before
a Division Bench as had been done earlier by a Single Bench of this court.
In support of his contention, the leaned counsel cited the following
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court -
In Hari Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1993) 3 SCC
114, the Hon'ble Apex Court held -
"10. It is true that in the system of justice which is being administered
by the courts, one of the basic principles which has to be kept in
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[11]
view, is that courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, should have
consistent opinions in respect of an identical set of facts or on a
question of law. If courts express different opinions on the identical
sets of facts or question of law while exercising the same
jurisdiction, then instead of achieving harmony in the judicial
system, it will lead to judicial anarchy. But before any such
principle is applied it must be held that the earlier order passed by
this Court dismissing the special leave petition of the co-accused
amounts to a judgment or an affirmance of the findings of the High
Court, about the manner of the occurrence, participation of the
different accused persons and the nature of offence committed by
them."
In Safiya Vs. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain, reported in (2011) 2 SCC
94, the Hon'ble Apex Court held -
"27. However, even assuming that the decision in WP. No. 35561 of
1998 did not operate as res judicata, we are constrained to
observe that even if the learned Judges who decided WP. No. 304
of 2001 did not agree with the view taken by a co-ordinate Bench
of equal strength in the earlier WP. No. 35561 of 1998 regarding
the interpretation of Section 2(c) of the Act and its application to
the petition schedule property, judicial discipline and practice
required them to refer the issue to a larger Bench. The
learned Judges were not right in overruling the statement of the
law by a co-ordinate Bench of equal strength. It is an accepted
rule or principle that the statement of the law by a Bench is
considered binding on a Bench of the same or lesser number of
Judges. In case of doubt or disagreement about the decision of
the earlier Bench, the well accepted and desirable practice is that
the later Bench would refer the case to a larger Bench."
[10] The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the
recommendation made by the Manipur Lokayukta in its judgment and
order dated 07-02-2022 impugned in the connected writ petitions, criminal
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[12]
proceedings against the writ petitioners have already been initiated by
registering an FIR and that if the connected writ petitions are allowed by this
court by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order
passed by the Manipur Lokayukta, criminal proceedings against the writ
petitioners and others will also go as a natural consequences. The learned
counsel, accordingly submitted that the proceedings in the connected writ
petitions are in the nature of criminal proceedings and there will be no
intra-court appeal available against the order passed by this court in the
connected writ petitions. In view of the above, it has been submitted that it
will be just and proper and in the interest of justice that the connected writ
petitions are heard by a Division Bench. In support of his contention, the
learned counsel cited the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Ram
Kishan Fauji Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 533 wherein
it has been held as under -
"51. It is worthy to note that a series of decisions were cited on behalf
of the appellants therein including a Full Bench judgment of the
Gujarat High Court in Patel Kashiram Lavjibhai v. Narottamdas
Bechardas wherein the Full Bench considered Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution in the light of various decisions of this Court
and deduced certain principles. The Division Bench in Sanjeev
Rajendrabhai Bhatt case distinguished the said decision on the
ground that the Full Bench did not lay down as a proposition of law
that LPAs would be maintainable even if an order was passed by
the learned Single Judge in exercise of criminal jurisdiction, for the
case before the Full Bench related to right in land and the question
was whether the power exercised by the learned Single Judge
was under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Eventually, the Court referred to Ishwarlal Bhagwandas and
opined thus: (Sanjeev Case, Guj LR pp. 232-33, paras 80-83)"
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[13]
"80. In our considered opinion, in the instant case, the
proceedings can be said to be criminal proceedings
inasmuch as, carried to its conclusion, they may result into
imprisonment, fine etc. as observed by the Supreme Court
in Narayana Row."
"81. From the totality of facts and circumstances, we have no
hesitation in holding that the learned Single Judge has
passed an order in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. At the
cost of repetition, we reiterate what we have already stated
earlier that the proceedings were of a criminal nature.
Whether a criminal Court takes cognizance of an offence
or sends a complaint for investigation under sub-section (3)
of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
does not make difference so far as the nature of
proceedings is concerned. Even if cognizance is not taken,
that fact would not take out the case from the purview of
criminal jurisdiction."
"82. In our judgment, a proceeding under Article 226 of the
Constitution arising from an order passed or made by a
Court in exercise or purported exercise of power under the
Code of Criminal Procedure is still a "criminal proceeding"
within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. A
proceeding seeking to avoid the consequences of a
criminal proceeding initiated under the Code of Criminal
Procedure will continue to remain "criminal proceeding"
covered by the bracketed portion of Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent."
Being of this view, the Division Bench ruled that as Clause
15 of the Letters Patent expressly bars an appeal against the order
passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in exercise of criminal
jurisdiction, LPAs are not maintainable and, accordingly,
dismissed the same."
"52. From the aforesaid analysis, it is demonstrable that the
Gujarat High Court has opined that relying on the authority
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[14]
of this Court in Ishwarlal Bhagwandas, the issue whether the
proceedings are civil or not would depend upon the nature
of the right violated and the appropriate relief which might be
claimed and not upon the nature of the tribunal which has
been invested to grant relief. The Division Bench further
opined that even if cognizance is not taken in respect of a
criminal case, it would not take out the case from the purview
of criminal jurisdiction. Thus, it has been held by the Division
Bench that when there is a proceeding under Article 226 of
the Constitution arising from an order made by a Court in
exercise of power under the Code of Criminal Procedure, it
would be a criminal proceeding within the meaning of Letters
Patent."
"53. The Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi in C.S. Agarwal v.
State was dealing with a situation wherein a writ petition was
filed before the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of CrPC seeking
for appropriate writ for quashing of the FIR. As the writ
petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, an intra-
court appeal was preferred. A preliminary objection was
taken by the respondents as regards the maintainability of
the LPA contending that the judgment of the learned Single
Judge was passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction and the
letters patent appeal against such an order is barred by
Clause 10 and Clause 18 of the Letters Patent constituting
the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, which is applicable
to the Judicature of High Court of Delhi. The Full Bench
analysed Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and took note of
what has been prohibited for entertaining any intra-court
appeal. The Full Bench, analyzing various decisions, opined
thus: (SCC OnLine Del Parra 19)."
"19. ... proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution
would be treated as original civil proceedings only when
it concerns civil rights. A fortiori, if it concerns a criminal
matter, then such proceedings would be original
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[15]
criminal proceedings. Letters Patent would lie when the
Single Judge decides the writ petition in proceedings
concerning civil rights. On the other hand, if these
proceedings are concerned with rights in criminal law
domain, then it can be said that the Single Judge was
exercising his "criminal jurisdiction" while dealing with
such a petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution."
"54. After so stating, the Full Bench referred to the Constitution
Bench decision in Ishwarlal Bhagwandas and distinguished
the Full Bench decision of the Andhra High Court in
Gangaram Kandaram and noted the decision of the Division
Bench of Gujarat High Court in Sanjeev Rajendrabhai Bhatt
and came to hold as follows: (CS Agarwal Case, SSC OnLine
Del paras 32-33)."
"32. The test, thus, is whether criminal proceedings are
pending or not and the petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution is preferred concerning those criminal
proceedings which could result in conviction and order
of sentence."
"33. When viewed from this angle, it is clear that if the FIR
is not quashed, it may lead to filing of challan by the
investigating agency, framing of charge and can result
in conviction of order of sentence. Writ of this nature
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking
quashing of such an FIR would therefore be "criminal
proceedings" and while dealing with such proceedings,
the High Court exercises its "criminal jurisdiction."
"55. Being of this view, the Full Bench in C.S. Agarwal Case
opined that the letters patent appeal was not maintainable. In
this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn
our attention to the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High
Court in Vipul Gupta v. State wherein the Division Bench,
placing reliance on the Full Bench decision, has expressed
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[16]
the view that though the writ petitions were not filed for
quashing of FIR as in the case of the Full Bench decision, yet
the learned Single Judge was exercising criminal jurisdiction,
for the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi had agreed with the
proposal not to press the application for withdrawal of the
criminal case under Section 321 of the CrPC and allowed the
trial court to proceed on merits. In this factual backdrop, the
Division Bench opined: (Vipul Gupta case, SCC OnLine Del
pp. 290-91. Para 14)."
"14. ...Even though the challenge in the writ petitions was to
a decision of Hon'ble the Lieutenant Governor but the
said decision was relating to the prosecution already
underway of the appellants and the direct effect of the
dismissal of the writ petitions is of continuation of the
prosecution which may result in imposition of sentences
such as death, imprisonment, fine or forfeiture of
property, of the appellants. We are thus of the view that
this Court while dealing with the writ petitions was
exercising its criminal jurisdiction. It cannot be also lost
sight of that the writ petitions were intended to avoid the
consequences of criminal proceedings initiated
under the Code of Criminal Procedure and concerned
with rights in criminal law domain. We have thus no
doubt that the learned Single Judge, in dealing with the
writ petitions was exercising "criminal jurisdiction" and
these letters patent appeals are not maintainable."
"56. As we find from the decisions of the aforesaid three High
Courts, it is evident that there is no disagreement or conflict
on the principle that if an appeal is barred under Clause 10
or Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, as the case may be, no
appeal will lie. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, however,
has held that when the power is exercised under Article
226 of the Constitution for quashing of a criminal proceeding,
there is no exercise of criminal jurisdiction. It has
distinguished the proceeding for quashing of FIR
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[17]
under Section 482 CrPC and, in that context, has opined that
from such an order, no appeal would lie. On the contrary, the
High Courts of Gujarat and Delhi, on the basis of the law laid
down by this Court in Ishwarlal Bhagwandas, have laid
emphasis on the seed of initiation of criminal proceeding, the
consequence of a criminal proceeding and also the nature of
relief sought before the Single Judge under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The conception of "criminal jurisdiction" as used
in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is not to be construed in
the narrow sense. It encompasses in its gamut the inception
and the consequence. It is the field in respect of which the
jurisdiction is exercised, is relevant. The contention that
solely because a writ petition is filed to quash an
investigation, it would have room for intra-court appeal and if
a petition is filed under inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPC, there would be no space for an intra-court appeal,
would create an anomalous, unacceptable and inconceivable
situation. The provision contained in the Letters Patent does
not allow or permit such an interpretation. When we are
required to consider a bar or non-permissibility, we have to
appreciate the same in true letter and spirit. It confers
jurisdiction as regards the subject of controversy or nature of
proceeding and that subject is exercise of jurisdiction in
criminal matters. It has nothing to do whether the order has
been passed in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC."
"61. In the case at hand, the writ petition was filed under Article
226 of the Constitution for quashing of the recommendation
of the Lokayukta. The said recommendation would have led
to launching of criminal prosecution, and, as the factual
matrix reveals, FIR was registered and criminal investigation
was initiated. The learned Single Judge analysed the report
and the ultimate recommendation of the statutory authority
and thought it seemly to quash the same and after quashing
the same, as he found that FIR had been registered, he
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[18]
annulled it treating the same as a natural consequence.
Thus, the effort of the writ petitioner was to avoid a criminal
investigation and the final order of the writ court is quashment
of the registration of FIR and the subsequent investigation. In
such a situation, to hold that the learned Single Judge, in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,
has passed an order in a civil proceeding as the order that
was challenged was that of the quasi-judicial authority, that
is, the Lokayukta, would be conceptually fallacious. It is
because what matters is the nature of the proceeding, and
that is the litmus test."
[11] Mr. Gurukrishnakumar Subramaniam, learned senior counsel
appearing for some of the respondents/ writ petitioners submitted that the
power conferred on a Single Judge under the provisions of Rule 3(1)(d) of
Chapter IV-A of the HC Rules for referring any application to the Hon'ble
Chief Justice for placing it before a Division Bench having regard to the
importance or complexity of the case is in the nature of discretionary power
and that the learned Single Judge can exercise such power during the
course of consideration of the merit of the case or after considering the
merits of the case and on finding that there are important and complex
issues involved in the case. The learned counsel also submitted that no
party in the litigation has locus or right to demand or insist before the learned
Single Judge that an application should be referred to the Hon'ble Chief
Justice for placing the same before a Division Bench.
It has been submitted that in the present case, no counter
affidavits have been filed by the Manipur Lokayukta in the connected writ
petitions raising any important or complex issues and in fact, the connected
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[19]
writ petitions are yet to be taken up by this court for consideration of the
merit of the cases. After reading the averments made by the applicant in the
present application line by line, it has also been submitted by the learned
senior counsel that no averments have been made by the applicant in the
present application to make out a case that there are important or complex
issues involved in the connected writ petitions. In view of the above, it has
been submitted by the learned senior counsel that the present application is
misconceive and not maintainable.
[12] The learned senior counsel also submitted that the prayer of the
petitioners in WP(C) No. 899 of 2021 was to direct the Registrar (Judl.) of
this court to conduct an enquiry in terms of Section 340 of the CrPC on the
basis of the application dated 04-10-2021 filed by the said petitioners under
the aforesaid provisions of the CrPC before the Hon'ble Lokayukta, Manipur.
The learned senior counsel further submitted that the prayer as well as the
issue involved in the said writ petition is totally different from the facts, law
and relief sought by the petitioners in the writ petitions connected with the
present application and accordingly, any order passed by this court in
WP(C) No. 899 of 2021 cannot be cited as a precedent in the present case.
It has also been submitted that the order dated 13-12-2021 directing the
registry of this court to list the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice on the
administrative side for appropriate orders is a consent order inasmuch as
the said order was passed on the joint prayer made by the counsel
appearing for the parties. In the said order, the learned Single Judge did not
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[20]
decide any issue and the said order is binding only to the litigants, in the
said writ petitions and to none others and that the said order cannot be cited
as a precedent.
[13] The learned senior counsel lastly submitted that the contention of
the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the proceedings of the
connected writ petitions will be in the nature of a criminal proceedings are
based on assumptions and such contentions are not sustainable specially
when this court is yet to take up the connected writ petitions for
consideration on merit. It has further been submitted that even assuming
that such contentions are correct, it cannot be a ground for referring the
connected writ petitions to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placing it before a
Division Bench in terms of provisions of Rule 3(1)(d) of the HC Rules. The
learned senior counsel, accordingly, submitted that there is no merit in the
present application and the same deserves to be rejected outright.
Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior Advocate, Mr. H.S. Paonam,
senior Advocate, Mr. H. Ishwarlal, senior Advocate and Mr. N. Jotendro,
senior Advocate endorsed the submissions made by Mr. Gurukrishnakumar
Subramaniam, learned senior Advocate and submitted that the present
application is de void of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
[14] The present application had been filed under Rule 3(1)(d) of
Chapter IV-A of the HC Rules. On careful examination and consideration of
the provisions of the aforesaid rules, this court is of the considered view that
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[21]
a Single Judge can refer any application to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for
placing it before a Division Bench having regard to the importance or
complexity of the case. It, therefore, goes without saying that a Single Judge
had to apply its mind and consider first whether there is importance or
complexity in a case before referring it to the Hon'ble Chief Justice or placing
it before a Division Bench. In my considered opinion, the question as to
whether there is importance or complexity in a given case can only be
decided by a Single Bench during the course of consideration of the merits
of the case and not before. Simply put, it will not be reasonable or practicable
to insist upon a Single Judge to decide whether there is importance or
complexity in a given case before allowing him to consider the rival
contentions of the parties as well as the merits of the case.
[15] In the present case, the connected writ petitions are yet to be
moved and notice are yet to be issued as the applicant filed the present
application for referring the connected writ petitions to the Hon'ble Chief
Justice for placing it before a Division Bench and insisted on deciding the
present application before taking up the connected writ petitions for
considering the merit of the cases. In such circumstances, this court cannot
decide whether there is importance or complexity in the connected writ
petitions without considering the merits of the connected writ petitions and
therefore, this court is not inclined to entertain the present application. This
court also did not find any valid ground or reason being made out by the
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[22]
applicant in the present application to show that there are important and
complex issues involved in the connected writ petitions.
[16] The learned counsel appearing for the applicant relied heavily on
the order dated 13-12-2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court
in WP(C) No. 899 of 2021 and submitted that as a co-ordinate bench of this
court had already passed a judicial order directing the registry to list the
aforesaid writ petition before the Hon'ble Chief Justice on the administrative
side for appropriate orders and since the said writ petition had been heard
and dismissed by a Division Bench of this court, this court is bound to follow
the earlier order passed by a co-ordinate bench.
In this regard, it is to be pointed out that the said order dated
13-12-2021 was passed on the consent and joint prayer of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and that the learned Single Judge did not
decide any issue or laid down any law or legal principle. Accordingly, this
court is of the considered view that the said order is binding only to the
parties in the said litigation and the said order can never be cited as a
precedent or binding to this court for deciding the issue raised in the present
application. Moreover, on examination of the record, it is found that the
prayer and the issue involved in the said WP(C) No. 899 of 2021 is totally
different from the prayer and issue involved in the present cases. In such
view of the matter, this court is of the humble opinion that the authorities
cited by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant are not applicable
in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
[23]
[17] So far as the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant that the proceedings in the connected writ petitions are in the
nature of criminal proceedings and that there will be no intra-court appeal
available to the parties in the present case is concerned, this court is of the
view that such contentions have been made solely on the basis of
assumptions of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and that
even if there is possibility of non-availability of intra-court appeal, that may
not be a ground for referring the connected writ petitions for hearing by a
Division Bench within the ambit of Rule 3(1)(b) of the HC Rules and this
court is not inclined to entertain the present application on this ground. In
the result, this court finds not merit in the present application and the same
is, accordingly, dismissed, however without any cost.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
MC(WP(C)) No. 93 of 2022 Contd.../-
