Manipur High Court
Shri Haobijam Gitajen Meitei vs Shri Rajesh Agrawal on 5 April, 2023
Digitally
KABOR signed by
KABORAMBA
AMBAM M LARSON
LARSO Date:
2023.04.04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
N 15:11:23 AT IMPHAL
+05'30'
MC(W.A.) No.41 of 2023
Shri Haobijam Gitajen Meitei, aged about 40 years old, S/o H. Lukhoi
Meitei, presently Central Committee Member of the Manipur People's
Party with its office at Khwairamband Bazaar near Polo Ground, a
resident of Thanga Karang, PO & PS Moirang, Bishnupur District, now at
present residing at Ghari Awang Leikai, Imphal West, PO Tulihal & PS
Lamphel, Manipur - 795140.
....... Applicant/s
- Versus -
1. Shri Rajesh Agrawal, the Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur having its
office at Lamphelpat Imphal, PO & PS Lamphel, Imphal West, Manipur -
795004.
2. Shri K. Bono Singh, the Returning Officer, Election of the Interim
President of Manipur People's Party, Manipur, having its office at
Lamphelpat, PO & PS Lamphel, Imphal West, Manipur - 795004.
.... Respondent/s
MC(W.A.) No.41 of 2023 Page 1
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Applicant : Mr. S. Rupachandra, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Ms. Joan Kipgen, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. A. Jagjit, Advocate for R-1
Mr. S. Biswajit, Senior Advocate for R-2 assisted by
Ms. Prista Devi, Advocate, and
Mr. Surajkumar Sukham, Advocate
Date of Hearing : 29.03.2023
Date of Judgment & Order : 05.04.2023
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
(A. Guneshwar, J.)
The applicant/appellant has filed the present application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay of 37 days in filing the
accompanying Writ Appeal against the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the
Learned Single Judge in Cont.Cas(C) No.54 of 2022.
It is stated that there has been a delay of 37 days and the details of
the delay has been given as under:
MC(W.A.) No.41 of 2023 Page 2
09.11.2022 - Contempt Court passed order.
11.11.2022 - Existence of Court's order was communicated to the
applicant and party.
15.11.2022 - Discussion took place among the interested petitioners.
to
30.11.2022-
01.12.2022 - Consulted lawyer for challenging the order passed in
Contempt Case.
to
15.12.2022 -
30.12.2022 - Contacted lawyers, engaged and instructed to challenge the
order.
05.01.2023 - Counsel managed to procure documents.
to
13.01.2023 -
13.01.2023 - Certified copy of order applied.
17.01.2023 - Certified copy availed.
17.01.2023 - Drat finalized.
09.11.2022 - Total No. of days is 71 from the date of passing order and
date of filing.
to
17.01.2023 -
13.01.2023 -
to
17.01.2023 - 4 days time gap in between the date of application and
available of certified copy of order.
30 days - Statutory time of limitation
18.01.2023 - Writ Appeal along with Misc.Case filed with a delay of 37
days.
MC(W.A.) No.41 of 2023 Page 3
It is stated that the delay so caused is unintentional and if not
condoned, there will be loss and injury to the applicant and prayed that the
same may be condoned.
[2] The Respondent No.1 filed detailed reply to the application for
condonation of delay. It is stated that the delay of 37 days in preferring the Writ
Appeal has not been properly explained by the applicant/appellant.
In Para 4 of the counter affidavit, it is stated as follows:-
4. That, it is a settled position of law that while dealing with the
matter under a Limitation Act every day's explanation for such delay is
inevitable. Above being the position, the present Miscellaneous
application seeking for 37 days of delay in preferring the accompanying
Writ Appeal without satisfying explanation of causing such delay cannot
be entertained. The applicant has approached the Court in a very casual
manner without giving even the explanation of the intervening periods of
the events, and as such the present application is misconceived and
same has been filed in such a casual manner that the same deserves to
be rejected with heavy cost.
It is stated that, there has been unexplained gap of 3 days starting
from 12/11/2022 till 14/11/2022 and further the applicant also failed to explain
the delay caused with effect from 16.12.2022 till 29.12.2022 in filing of the
application and since the applicant is not able to properly explain the delay, it is
prayed that the application may be dismissed with heavy cost.
MC(W.A.) No.41 of 2023 Page 4
[3] The Respondent No.2 has also filed reply to the application for
condonation of delay. It is stated that the Writ Appeal itself is not maintainable
as the appellant/applicant is aggrieved by an order passed in Contempt
proceeding and the applicant ought to have filed a Contempt Appeal and
hence, the present application may be dismissed on this ground of
maintainability. It is also stated that the present applicant has no locus to file
the contempt petition as well as the present appeal as he himself was
participating in the said election by being a proposer of a candidate apart from
being a voter enrolled in the said notify voter list. He further stated that the
applicant is a chronic litigants and he has filed multiple writ petitions relating to
the administration of the MPP and was acting as the General Secretary even
after the Election Commission of India clarified that there was no office bearers
of MPP which was legally not recognised by the ECI. Therefore, he prays that
the application be dismissed as a threshold.
[3] Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned senior counsel for the applicant
submits that there is no inordinate delay. The delay as pointed out by the
respondents has been properly explained in the application. There is some
confusion due to typographical mistake.
[4] Mr. A. Jagjit, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 says that there
is no explanation for the period between 15.12.2022 to 30.12.2022 as given in
Para 2 of the application. Hence, the application may be rejected on this
ground.
MC(W.A.) No.41 of 2023 Page 5
[5] Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned senior counsel for the
applicant/appellant submits that due to typographical mistake in the
application, the time period from 01.12.2022 to 15.12.2022 should be between
01.12.2022 to 30.12.2022 and the same may be construed liberally in the
interest of justice and prays that the delay in filing the accompanying Writ
Appeal may be condoned.
[6] Mr. S. Biswajit, learned senior counsel for Respondent No.2 says
that the Writ Appeal has been filed against the closer of the Contempt and the
same is not maintainable in the present form and the application for condoning
delay in connection with non-maintainable appeal ought to be thrown at the
threshold.
[7] Heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered the rival
submissions and materials on record.
The applicant has explained the time taken in filing the
accompanying Writ Appeal and it is also clarified that there was a
typographical mistake in the application and the date 15.12.2022 is to be read
as 30.12.2022.
[8] The ground of non-maintainability of the Writ Appeal can be
considered at the time of admission of the Writ Appeal and in the present
application, the Court is to consider the explanation given by the
applicant/appellant.
MC(W.A.) No.41 of 2023 Page 6
We do not find inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the
applicant in preferring the Writ Appeal and the delay of 37 days in filing the
accompanying Writ Appeal is condoned and the application is allowed.
It is clarified that the respondents may raise the plea of
maintainability of the Writ Appeal while considering the admission of the Writ
Appeal.
[9] Accordingly, the Application being MC(W.A.) No.41 of 2023 is
allowed.
[10] Registry is directed to register the Writ Appeal if the same is in
order.
JUDGE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
-Larson
FR/NFR
MC(W.A.) No.41 of 2023 Page 7
