Shri N. Sarat Singh vs The State Of Manipur Through The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 525 Mani

SHAMURAILATPAM                Digitally signed by
                              SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA                 Date: 2022.11.24 16:22:49 +05'30'
                                                                          Page |1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                              AT IMPHAL

                              WP(C) No. 938 of 2022

   Shri N. Sarat Singh, aged about 64 years, S/o (L) N.
   Modhumangol Singh, a resident of Thangmeiband Yumnam
   Leikai, P.O. Lamphelpat & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
   District, Manipur.

                                                        ---Petitioner

                           -VERSUS-

   1.     The State of Manipur through the Chief Secretary,
         Government of Manipur, Secretariat South Block,
         Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal-795001.

   2.    The Manipur Lokayukta through its Secretary, 3rd Floor
         Directorate Complex, 2nd M.R. North AOC, P.O. & P.S.
         Imphal, Imphal West - 795001.

   3.    Shri Shrey Vats, IPS, SP, Kakching/I.O. in FIR Case No.
         FIR no. 4(02)2022 CB-PS u/s 7 (b)/13 PC Act, 120-B/34
         IPC arising from Complaint Case No. 2 of 2020.

                                                                  ---Respondents

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

For the Petitioners :: Mr. HS Paonam, Sr. Adv.

For the respondents :: Mr. M. Rarry, Advocate.

        Date of Hearing &
        Judgment & Order                  ::      22.11.2021




   WP(C) No. 938 of 2022
                                                                    Page |2

                        JUDGMENT & ORDER
                             (ORAL)

Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel,

appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Rarry, learned counsel

appearing for the second respondent.

2. With the consent of either side, the writ petition is taken up

for consideration of an interim order at the admission stage.

3. The prayer in the writ petition reads thus:

"i) issue rule nisi and called for the records;

ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction of the like nature including writ of certiorari for interfering with the impugned letter dt. 31/10/2022 issued by Deputy Registrar, Manipur Lokayukta;

iii) issue a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other writ of the like nature prohibiting the Manipur Likayukta from taking further proceedings and consequential action in respect of the Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 and Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 in view of the action indicated by the warrant of search and seizure dt. 21/10/2022 and seizure memo dt. 24/10/2022 which has virtually circumvented the interim order dt. 29/09/2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP(C) No.833 of 2022;

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 Page |3

iv) in the interim restrain the respondent No.2 from taking further proceedings and consequential action in respect of Complaint Case No.2 of 2022 and Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 or in the alternative direction for maintaining status quo in respect of the abovementioned complaint cases and consequential action pending disposal of the above referred writ petition AND

v) pass any further order (s) direction(s) which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper to secure the ends of justice."

4. Mr. H.S. Paonam, the learned senior counsel appearing

for the petitioner pressed for an interim order restraining the second

respondent - Manipur Lokayukta from proceeding further in respect of

the Complaint Case Nos.2 of 2020 and 5 of 2022 contending that in the

name of ordering search and seizure in connection with the FIR bearing

No.4(2)2022 CB-PS registered pursuant to the order passed in

Complaint Case No.2 of 2020, the officials carried out an unholy action

of collection of documents connected with the Complaint Case No.5 of

2022 which is the subject matter of W.P.(C) No.833 of 2022, wherein

an interim order was passed by this Court restraining further

proceedings; and, that such an ill-calculated action to circumvent the

order of this Court warrants interference.

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 Page |4

5. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the

intention of Manipur Lokayukta about collection and seizure of

documents pertaining to Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 has the

reflection in its warrant of search and seizure issued by the Secretary,

Manipur Lokayukta with reference to the order dated 21.10.2022

passed by the Manipur Lokayukta while referring to Complaint Cases

as well as the activities and the communication amongst the police

personnel involved in the search and seizure proceedings selectively

looking for documents pertaining to works concerning installation of 2x5

MVA, 33/11 KV sub-station along with associated 33 KV line and

related civil works at Sagnu in Thoubal District on turnkey basis.

Therefore, it is highly imperative for issuing an order putting on hold

further proceedings of the Complaint Case Nos.2 of 2020 and 5 of 2022

pending disposal of the present writ petition.

6. On the other hand, by referring to Section 26 read with

Sections 56 and 57 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014 [for short, "the

said Act"], Mr. M. Rarry, the learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent/Manipur Lokayukta submitted that the second respondent

has power and jurisdiction to authorise any agency to whom the

investigation has been given to search and seize such documents and

that the search and seizure warrant, in pursuance of the order dated

21.10.2022 of the second respondent, had been executed and the

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 Page |5

same has been returned after execution under the report of the

investigating officer, the third respondent herein.

7. By relying upon the order of this Court dated 4.7.2022

passed in W.P.(C) Nos.161, 168, 171 and 225 of 2022, the learned

counsel for the second respondent submitted that in the said order, this

Court has made a clear cut observation that the Court did not find any

material or ground for passing any interim order which may result in

setting aside the criminal investigation against the petitioner and also

interim order for staying the criminal investigation of the FIR

No.4(02)2022 CB-PS under Section 7(b)/13 PC Act and Section 120-

B/34 IPC.

8. Mr. Rarry, the learned counsel for the second respondent

urged that staying the proceedings of the investigation of the FIR

No.4(02)2022 CB-PS will amount to interference of the criminal

investigation conducted by the third respondent and that it is also no

longer res integra that it is the prerogative of the third respondent to file

his investigation report and no other authority even the High Court or

Magistrate has no role to play. Thus, the learned counsel for the second

respondent strongly opposed for grant of any interim order in this case.

9. This Court considered the rival submissions and also

perused the materials available on record.

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 Page |6

10. As could be seen from the records, the petitioner was

made as an accused in the Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 by one

Thiyam Nirosh Singh alleging that the petitioner and other officials

embezzled huge amount of public money from the fund for the project,

construction of 2x1 MVA sub-station at Chakpi Karong along with the

associated 33 KV line and related civil work on turnkey basis under

NLCPR thereby causing major changes to the project for which they are

not authorized and also by doing illegal activities in the name of

executing the project. Upon hearing the parties, the second respondent

passed an order directing for investigation by registration of FIR.

Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.168 of

2022 on the ground that the second respondent has no power to direct

investigation when there is no finding of corruption against the

petitioner. The petitioner was also made as respondent in another

Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 made by one Ngangom Ibotombi Singh.

Challenging the same, he has filed W.P.(C) No.833 of 2022 on the

ground that the work in question in Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 was

completed 7 years before and by virtue of Section 53 of the said Act, it

cannot be investigated. In the said writ petition, this Court passed an

interim stay thereby restraining the respondents therein from further

proceeding with the Complaint Case No.5 of 2022.

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 Page |7

11. According to the petitioner, Mr. H.S. Paonam submit that

the second respondent in a strange manner issued warrant of search

and seizure in the residence of the petitioner and his office premises in

connection with Complaint Case No.2 of 2020. However, the

investigating officer, instead of collecting documents in regard to

Complaint Case No.2 of 2020, has collected documents related with

Complaint Case No.5 of 2022. Such an act of the second respondent

is not only in violation of the interim order passed in W.P.(C) No.833 of

2022, but also beyond the authority. According to the petitioner, in such

a situation only, one Mr.Syed Nawas Khan, an Advocate has sought for

information on the basis of warrant of search and seizure and the same

were directed to be issued vide order dated 21.10.2022. Instead of

providing the information, the Deputy Registrar of the second

respondent ordered the learned counsel to appear before the Manipur

Lokayukta to consider his application for providing information.

Situated thus and being aggrieved by the arbitrary exercise of power by

the second respondent, the petitioner has come forward to file the writ

petition.

12. On the contrary, it is the plea of the second respondent

that one Mr.Syed Nawas Khan, advocate, on behalf of the petitioner,

filed an application on 31.10.2022 to the Secretary, Manipur Lokayukta

requesting to furnish a certified copy of the information furnished by the

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 Page |8

informant in connection with Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 as reflected

in the search and seizure warrant of the suspected place of deposit.

The said application was taken on judicial side by the Manipur

Lokayukta. When the said application was taken up on 4.11.2022, the

learned counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment to show the

provision of law for furnishing certified copy of information. On the said

date, the learned counsel also informed the second respondent about

the filing of the instant writ petition.

13. It is stated by the second respondent that when the

application was taken up on 9.11.2022, Mr.A.Jankinath Sharma,

learned counsel, who appeared along with Mr.Syed Nawaz Khan,

counsel on record, submitted that he cannot find out any provision or

any law which permits the furnishing of certified copy of the source

information given by the informant in the course of investigation of

criminal case. After recording the submission, Mr.A.Jankinath Sharma,

learned counsel stated that he is not pressing the application filed by

Mr.Syed Nawaz Khan on behalf of the petitioner Sarat Singh, Managing

Director, Manipur State Power Corporation Limited and after getting

confirmation from Mr.A.Jankinath Sharma, learned counsel, the second

respondent rejected the application dated 31.10.2022 filed by Mr.Syed

Nawaz Khan, advocate. However, on 10.11.2022, Mr.Jankinath

Sharma, learned counsel, filed an application before the Deputy

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 Page |9

Registrar contrary to what was stated and recorded vide order dated

9.11.2022.

14. According to the second respondent, there is concealment

of fact in the instant writ petition for getting interim order restraining the

proceedings of Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 and investigation of FIR

No.4(02)2022 CB-PS under Section 7(b)/13 PC Act and Section 120-

B/34, 468, 471 IPC, inasmuch as, since the interim prayer has already

been rejected by this Court on 4.7.2022, the present writ petition, being

W.P.(C) No.938 of 2022, is in disguise for getting interim relief.

15. At this juncture, learned senior counsel for the petitioner

submitted that on 9.11.2022 when the application dated 31.10.2022

(Misc. Case No.13 of 2022) was listed before the second respondent,

Mr.Syed Nawaz Khan, learned counsel, who filed the application due to

his personal inconvenience requested one of his colleagues namely

Mr.Jankinath Sharma to appear on his behalf and for making a prayer

for deferring in view of moving of W.P.(C) No.938 of 2022. He would

submit despite having knowledge about the filing of W.P.(C) No.938 of

2022, the second respondent insisted Mr.Jankinath Sharma to refer to

the legal position and permissibility of filing such application.

Whereupon Mr.Janikath Sharma submitted that he was appearing on

behalf of Mr.Syed Nawaz Khan who made a request for making a prayer

for deferring to some other date and he being no counsel for the

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 P a g e | 10

petitioner and he is not aware of the case. However, in the evening of

9.11.2022 when the petitioner read the order, he came to know that the

application dated 31.10.2022 was rejected by the second respondent

According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the

representing counsel has made a submission that he is not pressing

the application. However, the second respondent, contrary to the

representation made by the learned counsel, rejected the application.

16. When this Court perused the order dated 9.11.2022

passed in Misc. Case No.13 of 2022, it is seen that the second

respondent though recorded the submission of the representing

counsel on behalf of the petitioner that he is not pressing the

application, at the result portion, the second respondent stated that "this

application dated 31.102022 is rejected and in the result the present

Misc. Case is disposed".

17. For proper appreciation, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order

dated 9.11.2022 are extracted herein below:

"3. Mr. A. Jankinath Sharma, learned counsel frankly submits that he is not pressing the application dated 31.10.2022 filed by Mr. Syed Nawaz Khan, Advocate on behalf of Shri N. Sarat Singh, Managing Director, MSPCL.

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 P a g e | 11

4. This application dated 31.10.2022 is rejected and in the result the present Misc. Case is disposed of."

18. Subsequent to the passing of the order dated 9.11.2022,

the representing counsel has filed another application dated

10.11.2022 before the second respondent for recalling the order dated

9.11.2022 made in Misc. Case No.13 of 2022. After entertaining the

application, on 10.11.2022, Mr.Jankinath Sharma was called before the

second respondent where there has been long deliberation about his

conduct in making submission before it by insisting that it was A.

Jankinath Sharma who made the submission for not pressing the

application and accordingly, returned the application dated 10.11.2022

stating that the application is unacceptable.

19. First of all, when the learned counsel, who is either

counsel on record or representing counsel, submitted before the

second respondent that he is not pressing a particular application, in

the same mode only, the application has to be disposed of by the

second respondent. The rejection order stated in paragraph 4 would

show that as if the second respondent rejected the application on

merits. In view of the above, the rejection order passed by the second

respondent is unsustainable. That apart, the application submitted by

Mr.Jankinath Sharma on 10.11.2022 was neither rejected after its

registration as has been done in the earlier application of 31.10.2022,

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 P a g e | 12

nor rejected at the counter and returning of the same to the applicant is

unprecedented. In such circumstances, the arguments of the learned

senior counsel for the petitioner that the consideration of the application

dated 31.10.2022 and the subsequent order passed by the second

respondent - Manipur Lokayukta having knowledge about the filing of

the instant writ petition would make it very clear that Manipur Lokayukta

intends to foreclose the hearing of the writ petition, at any cost, the order

passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.833 of 2022 has not looked into,

cannot be brushed aside.

20. A perusal of the records would reveal that FIR Case

No.4(02)2022 on the file of Crime Branch Police Station was registered

against 12 persons, including the petitioner. As per the order dated

7.2.2022, the second respondent appointed the third respondent - Shri

Shrey Vats, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Kakching to investigate the

Complaint Case No.2 of 2020. In the said Complaint Case, the third

respondent submitted an application, being Misc. Case No.12 of 2022

on 20.10.2022 stating that documentary evidences which are missing

are suspected to be secreted away and thus sought for permission

before the second respondent to conduct search and seizure under

Section 26(1) of the Act of 2014 at the residence of the petitioner or at

the office of the Manipur State Power Company Limited.

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 P a g e | 13

21. The second respondent, by the order dated 21.10.2022,

granted permission to the third respondent to conduct search and

seizure at the residence of the petitioner and/or at the office of MSPCL

and, after completion of search and seizure, directed to return the

warrant. The third respondent was authorised to retain the documents

and material exhibits if seized under Section 26(1) of the Act of 2014 in

his safe custody.

22. The specific case of the petitioner is that the search and

seizure was started from 24.10.2022 (Diwali and Ningol Chakkauba)

and during search and seizure the petitioner and his family members

co-operated the investigating officer. During search, a cash of

Rs.2,77,500/- was seized. According to the petitioner, at the time of

search and seizure, the team head by the third respondent was started

looking for the documents relevant and connected with the work order

for installation of 2x5 MVA, 33/11 KV sub-station along with associated

33 KV line and related civil works at Sugnu in Thoubal District on

turnkey basis, which is not all connected and relevant with the issue

involved in the Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 as well as the aforesaid

FIR. Therefore, such an act of the third respondent is arbitrary and

based upon the report of the third respondent, the second respondent

cannot further proceed with the Complaint Case.

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 P a g e | 14

23. It appears that assailing the Complaint Case No.5 of 2022

the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.833 of 2022 before this Court and

on 29.09.2022, this Court passed the following interim order:

"[1] Heard Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

[2] Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued the case that prima facie the compliant taken by the Manipur Lokayukta in complaint case No. 5 of 2022 is not at all maintainable only on the ground that as per the Section 53 of Manipur Lokayukta Act if the alleged occurrence was lapsed for 7(seven) years, the complaint should not be taken by the Lokayukta. Mr. H.S Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner further raised another ground that in order dated 23.09.2022, the Manipur Lokayukta has passed an order in which in para No.9 of order dated 23.09.2022 which read as follows:

"Put up the case on 10.10.2022 for the personal appearance of (i) Administrative Secretary, Department of Power, Government of Manipur and (ii) Mrs. Orjubala Haorongbam, Deputy Secretary (power) Government of Manipur on 10.10.2022 at 11:00 am,

However of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, the learned Lukayukta have no power to issue any notice for personal appearance of the Administrative office concerned. But by the order dated 23.09.2022 of the

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 P a g e | 15

learned Manipur Lokayukta directly issued order for personal appearance of the Administrative officer. Therefore, once the complaint itself is not maintainable one before the Lokayukta and order dated 23.09.2022 is also not maintainable one.

[3] Mr. Mr. Rarry, learned Standing counsel represented the petitioner has not served case papers to him before taking up the matter for admission since he is the standing counsel for the Manipur Lokayukta. Anyhow, Mr. H. S Paoanam , learned senior counsel for the petitioner has given all the paper to Mr. M. Rarry, learned standing counsel in the open Court.

[4] After gone through the writ petition and documents, Mr. M. Rarry, learned Standing counsel for the Manipur Lokayukta represented the compliant case is not taken for registration as on date by the Manipur Lokayukta and the very file of the writ petition is premature one. Therefore, for proper instruction from the Manipur Lokayukta and for filing counter affidavit, he seeks time.

[5] Mr. HS Paonam learned senior counsel for the petitioner has produced certificate dated 14.08.2015 which read as follows:

Handing over/Taking Over (Certificate)

Date 14/08/2015

Project: Installation of 2x5 MVA, 33/11 kV Sub- Station along with the associated 33 KV line and related Civil works at Sugnu in Thoubal District on turn-key basis.

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 P a g e | 16

Ref.: LOA No. 4/109/33KV/SUG/13-

ED(PURCH)/706-17, dated 02/07/2014. Name of Line: Associated 33 kV transmission line.

With reference to the above mentioned LOA/Work Order, the construction activities of the associated 33 kV transmission line of the above project has been completed by tapping from existing 33 kV transmission line from New Chayang to Joupi in looping in -- looping out (LILO) configuration by M/s Shyama Power India Limited, Gurgaon, and the line has been successfully tested and commissioned on 14/08/2015 in presence of MSPCL officials. The completed transmission line facility is taken over by the Dy. General Manager, TD-IIl, Manipur State Power Company Limited (MSPCL) on this day i.e., 14/08/2015.

      'For and behalf of                        For and Behalf of
     Manipur State Power                         Shyama Power India
     Company Limited                             Limited.


            DGM, TD-III                                 Project manager
            (taken over)                                (handing over)

[6] As per the above certificate dated 14.08.2015 issued by Shyama Power India Limited which was handing over/taking over on 14.08.2015, it is made clear that as per the Section 53 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014, the complaint is time barred one. Apart from this the learned Lokayukta has no right to pass any order for the personal appearance officers concerned as ordered 23.09.2022.

[7] Therefore, prima facie of the petitioner is made out the case before this Court.

[8] Accordingly, this writ petition is admitted.

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 P a g e | 17

[9] Notice to the respondents. Since Mr. Rarry, learned counsel takes notice for the Lokayukta, no formal notice is required.

[10] Post this matter on 20.10.2022.

[11] Till such time, there shall be an order of interim stay of the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by learned Manipur Lokayukta.

[12] Print the name of Mr. Rarry in the cause list."

24. It also appears that on 21.10.2022, this Court passed the

following order:

"Mr. N. Bipin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that one of the conducting counsel for the petitioner is my relative and accordingly, a prayer is made for posting this matter before another Bench. Learned counsel however, submitted that earlier interim order may be extended till the next date. Mr. M. Rarry, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the respondent No. 2 has already filed an application for vacation of the interim order. Since this matter cannot be taken up by this Court, list this case before another Bench on 21st October, 2022. Till then, earlier interim order shall continue."

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 P a g e | 18

25. Thus, it is clear that there is an interim order in regard to

search and seizure of the documents relevant and connected with the

work order involved in Complaint Case No.5 of 2022.

26. At this stage, by referring to paragraph 10 of the writ

petition, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

documents seized in the seizure memo are not all connected with the

Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 and the FIR referred above, but

connected with the Complaint Case No.5 of 2022. He also submitted

that the work order involved in Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 is in

relation to the construction of 2x1 MVA, 33/11 KV sub-station at

Chakpikarong along with the associated 33 KV line and the related civil

works on turnkey basis under NLCPR, whereas the work order which is

the subject matter of Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 is regarding

installation of 2x5 MVA, 33/11 KV sub-station along with associated 33

KV line and related civil works at Sugnu in Thoubal District on turnkey

basis. Thus, the argument of learned senior counsel for the petitioner

is that the seized documents as reflected in the seizure are not at all

connected with the Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 and are involved in

connection with Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 and in fact, the third

respondent and his team exceeded their limit and that the intention of

the search and seizure carried out by the agency of Manipur Lokayukta

as inferred from the body language of the search team as noticed by

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 P a g e | 19

the officials present during the search and seizure proceedings that the

team has come to collect materials and documents involved in

Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 which has been put a restrain by the

interim order of this Court dated 29.9.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.833

of 2022.

27. Prima facie, the aforesaid argument of the learned senior

counsel for the petitioner is supported by material proof and the same

has not been controverted and/or disproved by the second

respondents. Since the third respondent searched and seized the

documents which are not related to the Complaint Case No.2 of 2020,

to know about the details of seizure, the petitioner prayed the second

respondent by filing an application dated 31.10.2022 for furnishing the

certified copy of the proceedings and the orders passed by the second

respondent.

28. It appears that, as rightly argued by the learned senior

counsel for the petitioner, in the name of ordering search and seizure

in connection with the FIR registered pursuant to the order passed in

Complaint Case No.2 of 2020, the third respondent carried out

collection of documents connected with the Complaint Case No.5 of

2022. Such an action of the investigation officer and his team is against

the interim order granted in W.P.(C) No.833 of 2022. Further, the non-

furnishing of the information as sought by the petitioner and issuance

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 P a g e | 20

of warrant of search and seizure is clear departure from the accepted

norms of furnishing an information to an individual and the accused in

the proceedings, inasmuch as violation of principles of natural justice.

29. At this stage, the learned counsel for the second

respondent submitted that the investigation is on advanced stage and

the same cannot be stalled and that there is concealment of fact in the

instant case for getting an order restraining the proceeding of the

Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 and the investigation in FIR No.4(2)2022

CB-PS and that the interim prayer has already been rejected by this

Court vide order dated 4.7.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.161 of 2022 etc.

batch.

30. This Court, by the order dated 4.7.2022 in W.P.(C) No.161

of 2022 etc. batch, has passed the following order:

"[20] On careful consideration of the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court is of the tentative view that the Manipur Lokayukta was not justified in insisting to furnish the reasons for not accepting such recommendations since the State Government is yet to take a decision with regard to the said recommendation."

In the said order, this Court, finally observed as under:

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 P a g e | 21

"In view of the above quoted decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and as the State Government is yet to take a decision with regard to the recommendations of the Manipur Lokayukta for not allowing the petitioners to continue in their respective official capacity in the Manipur State Power Corporation Limited till the completion of the investigation, this court hope and trust that the Manipur Lokayukta will not insist or direct the authorities of the State Government to implement or carried out such recommendations. It is, however, made clear that the above observations made by this court should not be construed as an interim order restraining the State Government from taking a decision as to whether the State Government will accept the aforesaid recommendations of the Lokayukta as mandated under Section 32(2) of the Lokayukta Act. It is hoped and trust that the State Government will take a decision with regard to the aforesaid recommendations of the Manipour Lokayukta as mandated under Section 32(2) of the Lokayukta Act as early as possible."

31. Thus, on a perusal of the prayer portion in W.P.(C)

Nos.161, 168, 171 and 225 of 2022, it is clear that the reliefs sought

for in the aforesaid writ petitions are entirely different to that of the

prayer now sought for in W.P.(C) No.938 of 2022. Therefore, at this

stage, it cannot come to the conclusion that the rejection of the interim

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 P a g e | 22

relief in W.P.(C) No.161 of 2022 etc. batch dated 4.7.2022 is disentitle

the petitioner from seeking interim order in the instant writ petition.

32. The grant or refusal of the interim order is within the

discretion of the Court based upon the facts and circumstances of the

case and the rejection of the interim order early by this Court dated

4.7.2022 will not prevent this Court in considering the interim prayer

restraining the second respondent from taking further proceedings and

consequential action in respect of the Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 and

Complaint Case No.5 of 2022. At the same time, the investigating team

cannot search and seize the documents not related to the Complaint

Case No.2 of 2020 for which search and seizure warrant was issued.

As stated supra, prima facie, the petitioner has established that the

search and seizure of the documents related to the Complaint Case

No.5 of 2022 was made by the third respondent during search, which

act cannot be endorsed by this Court in the given facts and

circumstances of the case.

33. In a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion

that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further

investigation, after considering the broad parameters, while exercising

the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court

has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or

is required to be passed. This Court is of the view that prima facie case

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 P a g e | 23

for grant of interim order has been established by the petitioner and this

Court has also set out brief reasons for passing the interim order in the

earlier paragraphs of this order.

34. The law is well settled that an interim order of stay of

investigation during the pendency of the quash petition/writ petition can

be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not

require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally,

when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the

entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court

should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or

"no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated

to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the

competent Court. In the case on hand, the petitioner was granted

anticipatory bail in Cril. Misc. (AB) Case No.5 of 2022.

35. The interim order prayed for by the petitioner requires

consideration of prima facie case, balance of convenience and

irreparable loss, if any to the petitioner. As stated supra, the prayer

made by the petitioner brings out particular facts coupled with

supporting materials which would enable this Court to evaluate the

balance of convenience, irreparable loss and prima facie case of the

petitioner.

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022 P a g e | 24

36. In the aforesaid factual scenario, when this Court analysed

the prayer of the petitioner for grant of interim order, this Court is of the

view that the petitioner has established a prima facie case for granting

interim order of staying the further proceedings and the consequential

action in respect of the Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 and Complaint

Case No.5 of 2022 and the balance of convenience is also in favour of

the petitioner and in case the order restraining the second respondent

from taking further proceedings in the aforementioned two Complaint

Cases is not passed, definitely the petitioner would put to not only

irreparable loss and damage but also it will tarnish his image and also

in view of letter dated 17.2.2022, whereby the Secretary (Power),

Government of Manipur observed that it is not feasible to accept the

recommendations of the second respondent dated 7.2.2022 at present

due to administrative reasons under Section 32(2) of the Lokpal and

Lokayukta Act, 2013, in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to

pass the following orders:

              (i)       The writ petition is admitted.

              (ii)      Issue notice to the respondents, returnable

                        in four weeks. The petitioner is also

                        permitted to take private service to the

                        Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.




WP(C) No. 938 of 2022
                                                                     P a g e | 25

              (iii)     Mr.Rarry, learned counsel, takes notice on

                        behalf of the second respondent - Manipur

                        Lokayukta. No formal notice is required.

              (iv)      Let the writ petition be listed on 20.12.2022.

              (v)       Till such time, the second respondent is

restrained from taking further proceedings

and consequential action in respect of the

Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 and

Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 pending on

its file, which were initiated against the

petitioner.

JUDGE

FR/NFR Sushil

WP(C) No. 938 of 2022