Manipur High Court
Ningombam Puinabati Devi Aged ... vs Thongram Ongbi Premeshwori Devi ... on 10 October, 2022
CHONGNUN Digitally signed by
CHONGNUNKIM GANGTE
KIM GANGTE +05'30'
Date: 2022.10.10 11:53:54
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 723 OF 2021
Ningombam Puinabati Devi aged about 44 years, w/o
Ningombam Kuber Singh of Sapam Mayai Leikai P.O - Wangjing,
P.S - Kongnom, Thoubal District, Manipur - 795148
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Thongram Ongbi Premeshwori Devi aged about 56 years, W/o
Late Thongram Angou Singh of Tekcham Mamang Leikai, P.O -
Wangjing, P.S - Khongjom, Thoubal District, Manipur - 795148;
2. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Manipur, Babupara, Imphal P.O & P.S Imphal,
795001;
3. The Director General of Police (DGP), Government of Maniopur,
Babupara Imphal P.O & P.S Imphal - 795001;
4. Director General (DG), Border Security Force (BSF), Block NO.
10, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003;
5. The Superintendent of Police, Thoubal, P.O & P.S Thoubal,
Thoubal District, Manipur - 795138;
... Respondents
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Petitioner :: Mr. B. Prem Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents :: Mr. Leo Rommel, Advocate
WP(C) No. 723 of 2021 Page 1
2
Mr. Shyam Sharma, Govt. Advocate
Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, Sr.PCCG
Date of hearing :: 16.08.2022
Date of Judgment :: 10-10-2022
JUDGMENT
(CAV)
Heard Mr. B. Prem Sharma, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Mr. Leo Rommel, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No. 1, Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA appearing
for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 5 and Mr. S. Vijayanand, learned
Sr.PCCG appearing for the respondent No. 4.
[2] The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer
for granting the following reliefs:-
" (iii) to issue writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or any other
appropriate writ/directions/orders directing the respondents to take necessary
action to the respondents and to pay compensation to the petitioner.
(iv) to recover the misused money of the Indian Government from the
respondent No. 1 for stealing Certificate from the petitioner's husband"
[3] The case of the petitioner is that, her husband passed
his High School Leaving Certificate Examination in the year 1982
from the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur in the year 1982.
According to the petitioner, her husband told her that one of his
friend namely, Mr. Tongram Angou Singh requested him to give his
Matriculate Certificate, but he turned down the said request. After
WP(C) No. 723 of 2021 Page 2
sometime, the husband of the respondent No. 1 joined the Border
Security Force (BSF) as Constable by impersonating as
Ningombam Kuber Singh of Sapam Mayai Leikai in the year 1983.
According to the petitioner, her husband suspected that his
matriculation certificate had been stolen by the husband of the
respondent No. 1 and joined the Border Security Force as
Constable by impersonating the petitioner's husband. The
petitioner also learned that the husband of the respondent No. 1
passed away in the year 1992 due to an unfortunate incident while
serving as Lance Naik in the BSF. It has been alleged by the
petitioner that the husband of the respondent No. 1 joined the BSF
as Constable by impersonating as the husband of the petitioner and
that after the death of the respondent No. 1's husband, the
respondent No. 1 had been enjoying the family pension as the wife
of (L) Ningombam Kuber Singh.
[4] The petitioner has also alleged that she went to the
respondent No. 1 and requested her repeatedly to returned back
the Matriculation Certificate of her husband, however, instead of
helping the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 and her family
harassed the petitioner and even threatened to kill the petitioner's
family members. Having no alternative, the petitioner approached
the Director General of the Border Security Force by submitting a
complaint against the respondent No. 1 requesting to take up
necessary actions against the respondent No. 1 by cancelling her
family pension benefits.
WP(C) No. 723 of 2021 Page 3
[5] The said complaint was considered by the competent
authorities of the BSF and the same was rejected by the
Commandant, 191 Bn. BSF on the ground, inter alia, that the
husband of the respondent No. 1 was appointed in the BSF after
following due process of recruitment and after proper verification of
all his educational certificates and that there was no question of
impersonation as alleged by the petitioner. According to the
petitioner, she again filed a complaint to the O.C of Khongjom
Police Station on 27-12-2016 by narrating all the facts and
requesting to take up necessary actions against the respondent No.
1 under the relevant provisions of the IPC, however, the said O.C
refused to receive the said complaint. Feeling aggrieved and having
no alternative, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the
present writ petition for redressing her grievances.
[6] Mr. B. Prem Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner strenuously submitted that on bare examination of the
Matriculation Certificate used by the late husband of the respondent
No. 1 in joining the BSF and the electoral roll wherein, the name of
the respondent No. 1 is recorded, it is crystal clear that the husband
of the respondent No. 1 joined the BSF as a Constable by
impersonating the husband of the petitioner. However, despite
clear cut evidences available on record which shows the unlawful
acts carried out by the husband of the respondent No. 1, the
authorities of the BSF as well as the concerned police personnel
have refused to take any action against the respondent No.
1despite the repeated complaint made by the petitioner.
WP(C) No. 723 of 2021 Page 4
[7] Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further
submitted that such acts of the BSF officials as well as the police
personnel are very much arbitrary and accordingly, interference
from this Court is highly called for by directing the respondents to
take up necessary action against the respondent No. 1 on the basis
of the complaint made by the petitioner. It has also been submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the petitioner is entitled to get
relief sought for in the present writ petition.
[8] Mr. Leo Rommel, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 1 submitted that the husband of the respondent No.
1 joined the BSF as a Constable w.e.f, 26-02-1983 and that while
serving as Lance Naik in the BSF, the husband of the respondent
No. 1 sustained splinter injuries due to an IED planted by the
extremist and died on the spot on 29-08-1992. According to the
learned counsel, neither the petitioner nor her husband made any
complaint against the husband of the respondent No. 1during his
lifetime about the alleged impersonation. Only about 20 (twenty)
years after the death of the husband of the respondent No. 1, the
petitioner filed a complaint dated 22.02.2012 to the Director
General of BSF against the respondent No. 1 alleging about the
impersonation and for taking up action against the respondent No.
1. The learned counsel submitted that the complaint filed by the
petitioner had already been considered by the authorities of the
BSF and the same had been rejected after giving elaborate reasons
in the letter dated 22.02.2016 of the Commandant, 191 Bn. BSF. It
has also been submitted that the petitioner never challenge the
WP(C) No. 723 of 2021 Page 5
order passed by the Commandant, 191 Bn. BSF thereby rejecting
the complaint of the petitioner.
[9] Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1
further submitted that the present writ petition had been filed only
on 16.10.2021 after a gross delay and the petitioner have not given
any explanation about such an ordinate delay in filing the present
writ petition. In such view of the matter, learned counsel submitted
that the present writ petition is barred by the period of limitation
under Article 91 (a) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and accordingly, the
present writ petition is liable to be rejected outright.
[10] Mr. S. Vijayanand, learned Sr.PCCG appearing for the
respondent No. 4 submitted that the allegations raised by the
petitioner against the husband of the respondent No. 1 in her
complaint submitted to the Director General, BSF have been
considered by the concerned authorities of the BSF and such
allegation raised by the petitioner have been rejected by the
authorities of the BSF by giving elaborate reasons as contained in
the letter dated 22.02.2016 of the Commandant, 191 Bn. BSF
addressed to the present petitioner.
[11] Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4
further submitted that the petitioner did not question or challenge
the aforesaid letter dated 22.02.2016 and accordingly, the
petitioner is barred from raising the same issue in the present writ
petition. Learned counsel also submitted that one of the ground for
rejecting the allegations raised by the petitioner in her complaint is
on the ground of gross delay and that the present writ petition had
WP(C) No. 723 of 2021 Page 6
been filed after a delay of about 29 (twenty-nine) years from the
date of expiry of the husband of the respondent No. 1 and that too
without giving any explanation for such delay. Accordingly, the
present writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be
dismissed as devoid of merit.
[12] Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA appearing for the
respondent No. 5 submitted that the only allegation made by the
petitioner against the respondent No. 5 is in connection with the
complaint dated 17.04.2021 submitted by the petitioner to the O.C,
Khongjom Police Station and such allegation of the petitioner has
been categorically denied by the respondent No.5 by stating that
no such complaint had been submitted to the concerned Police
Station and that, even if such complaint is filed, no action can be
taken on the basis of such complaint as there is gross delay in filing
such complaint.
[13] I have heard the rival submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties at length and I have also carefully
examined the records of the present case. In the present case, the
incident of impersonation alleged by the petitioner took place in the
early part of 1983, about 38 (thirty-eight) years back and all the
allegations raised by the petitioner against the respondent No. 1
and her husband had been already considered and rejected by the
concerned authorities of the Border Security Force by giving
elaborate reasons as contained in the letter of the Commandant,
191 Bn. BSF dated 22.02.2016. It is also an undisputed fact that
the petitioner never question or challenge the decision or the
WP(C) No. 723 of 2021 Page 7
reasons given by the Commandant, 191 Bn. BSF in his letter dated
22.02.2016. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that
such issues cannot be re-opened and considered at this point of
time especially in view of the fact that the husband of the
respondent No. 1 had already expired long back in the year 1992.
This Court is also of the considered view that there is
gross delay in filing the present writ petition and the petitioner did
not give any explanation for the delay in approaching this Court by
filing the present writ petition and moreover, the allegation raised
by the petitioner against the respondent No.1 and her late husband
are all denied and refuted by the respondents and this Court is not
inclined to decide such disputed question of facts raised by the
authorities in the present writ petition. In the result, the writ petition
is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.
JUDGE
kim
WP(C) No. 723 of 2021 Page 8
