Shri Potsangbam Jaminikanta ... vs The State Of Manipur Through The ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 149 Mani

SHAMURAILATPAM              Digitally signed by
                            SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA               Date: 2023.04.06 13:42:01 +05'30'
                                                                    Page |1


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                 AT IMPHAL

                               PIL No. 34 of 2022

       Shri Potsangbam Jaminikanta Singh, aged about 42
       years, S/o (late) P. Iboyaima Singh, by profession
       Advocate, resident of Haobam Marak Nangom Leikai,
       P.O. Imphal, P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District,
       Manpur-795001.
                                                   ... Petitioner

                            -Versus-

       1.    The State of Manipur through the Chief Secretary,
             Govt. of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat, Imphal West
             - 795001.

       2.    The Principal Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary,
             (Works), Govt. of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat,
             Imphal West - 795001.

       3.    The Chief Engineer (Works), Govt. of Manipur,
             Khoyathong, Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.

       4.    M/S Sri Avantika Contractor (I) Ltd. 610, Nilgiri Block,
             Aditya Enclave, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 38.
                                                   ... Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA

For the Petitioner :: Mr. Th. Khagemba, Advocate

For the Respondents :: Mr. Lenin Hijam, AG Mr. Tayenjam Momo, Advocate

Date of Hearing and

PIL No. 34 of 2022 Page |2

reserving Judgment & Order :: 29.03.2023

Date of Judgment & Order :: 04.04.2023

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) (M.V. Muralidaran, Acting CJ)

This public interest litigation has been filed by the

petitioner, who is a practising lawyer, seeking issuance of a writ

of mandamus directing the respondents to complete the

balance/remaining work for construction of Capital Complex

(Civil Secretariat Component) at Mantripukhri, Imphal, so that the

existing Manipur Secretariat may be shifted to the new building

and there is no traffic congestion.

2. The case of the petitioner is that in October, 2010,

the work for construction of Civil Secretariat was awarded to

M/s.Simplex Projects Limited and since M/s.Simplex Projects

Limited was not able to complete the construction work within the

stipulated time, the contract was terminated vide letter dated

2.11.2019. Thereafter, on 28.12.2019, the Public Works

Department issued a fresh Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for the

Civil Secretariat work, which was also challenged by M/s.Simplex

Projects Limited and finally, this Court, vide judgment and order

dated 13.1.2021 in W.A.No.39 of 2020, directed the parties to

have a final joint measurement and after completion of the joint

PIL No. 34 of 2022 Page |3

measurement, liberty was given to the State to proceed with the

construction of the Civil Secretariat Complex by following the

required formalities and procedures as provided by law.

3. Further case of the petitioner is that as per the joint

measurement, the balance work estimation was determined and

NIT for the work "Construction of Capital Complex" at

Mantripukhri was invited on 19.2.2021 till 15.3.2021 in two-bid

system comprising of technical and financial bid. The fourth

respondent M/s.Sri Avantika Contractor (I) Limited emerged as

successful bidder and was awarded the work on 27.5.2021 within

a condition to complete the work within 12 months and the

contract agreement was also executed between the fourth

respondent and the State. The execution of the work was also

started by the said firm. However, the said balance work could

not be completed by the said firm within the stipulated period and

M/s.Sri Avantika Contractor (I) Limited requested for extension of

time and the deadline for completion of the said balance of work

was extended upto 30.9.2022. However, the work yet to be

completed without assigning any reason. The non-completion of

the said work till date is causing inconvenience to the general

public passing through the eastern side of the present Manipur

PIL No. 34 of 2022 Page |4

Secretariat. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present public

interest litigation.

4. The respondents 2 and 3 filed affidavit stating that

the present public interest litigation suffers from technical

defects, as no representation was made to the authorities

concerned for remedial actions before filing this petition by the

petitioner as per the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019. Hence,

the motive of this petition is ill-conceive and liable to be

dismissed.

5. The fourth respondent filed affidavit stating that the

fourth respondent was aware of the issue of congestion faced in

the Highway adjacent to the existing Secretariat. Even though,

the traffic congestion may be attributed on various factors, the

fourth respondent believes that if the subject project is

completed, the traffic will be decongested from the Highway

adjacent to the existing Secretariat. It is stated that while the

fourth respondent had initiated works at the site, a number of

impediments, including restrictions due to Covid-19 pandemic,

curfews enforced by the Government, impeded the pace of the

project. Some part of the work was being done by certain

unauthorized contractors at the site and the fourth respondent

always kept the Public Works Department abreast of the situation

PIL No. 34 of 2022 Page |5

and sought appropriate measures to mitigate these impediments.

In the month of August, 2021, the fourth respondent procured all

requisite materials for the project as per the specifications and in

the process, certain deviations and extra items were noticed due

to change in the site conditions and they were also duly notified

to the PWD. Some of the deviations/extra items were approved

by the PWD only after a year. Despite the impediments, the

fourth Respondent was entrusted to work on the prestigious

project and also offered to conduct extra landscaping and

horticultural works at the site. The fourth respondent,

accordingly, carried out extra items.

6. It is stated that immense pressure was put on the

fourth respondent to complete the works earlier than the

stipulated time period, however, on the contrary the PWD would

never clear the payments to the fourth respondent on time nor

approve deviations, rate analysis etc. in a timely manner. After

the newly elected State Government came in, there was an

added pressure on the fourth respondent to finish the project

prior in time for inauguration. However, even then, the PWD did

not take commensurate steps to facilitate such faster rate of work

by the fourth respondent. Clause 7 of the General Conditions of

the contract applicable in the present case stipulates that

PIL No. 34 of 2022 Page |6

payments shall be made within 45 days of presentation of the bill,

failing which simple interest at the rate of 5% shall accrue on

such bills.

7. It is further stated in the affidavit that the fourth

respondent is diligently carrying on the works at the site and

about 95% of the works at the site are complete. Despite

completion of 95% work, out of the total bill of Rs.100.78 crore

submitted by the fourth respondent, the PWD has only paid a

sum of Rs.69.11 crore and currently, there is an outstanding of

Rs.31.67 crore due to the fourth respondent by the PWD. The

approval on a large number of deviation items sought by the

fourth respondent has not been considered by the PWD and

remains actionable at their end. Hence, there is a delay in

completing the subject project and the fourth respondent is no

way related to the said delay.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the non-completion of the Civil Secretariat caused

inconvenience/grievances to the general public passing through

the eastern side of the present Manipur Secretariat, as both

halves of the National Highway in front of the Secretariat are

occupied by the parked vehicles of the officers/employees and

securities of VIPs, which has caused traffic congestion. Thus, a

PIL No. 34 of 2022 Page |7

prayer is made to direct the respondents to complete the balance

work within the time frame so that the present Manipur

Secretariat may be shifted to the new building at Mantripukhri.

9. The learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the official respondents submitted that there is

technical defect in the public interest litigation, as there is no

representation made to the authorities concerned for remedial

actions before filing the public interest litigation. He would submit

that the vehicles parked on the National Highway-102 in front of

the Manipur Secretariat are managed by the Imphal Municipality

and action is being taken against the illegally parked vehicles on

the NH-102 under Sections 24 and 27 of the National Highways

(Land and Traffic) Act, 2002. Thus, a prayer has been made to

dismiss the present public interest litigation.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth

respondent submitted that the fourth respondent is a contractor

entrusted with completion of the subject project and is aware of

the issue of congestion faced in the Highway adjacent to the

existing Secretariat. Even though, the traffic congestion

attributed on various factors, it verily believes that if the Civil

Secretariat work is completed, the traffic will be decongested

from the Highway adjacent to the existing Secretariat.

PIL No. 34 of 2022 Page |8

11. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent

would submit that it mobilized its team to the site by June, 2021.

However, it faced several difficulties upon visiting the site,

including security issues as number of unauthorized personnel

were gaining access to the site, handover of the drawings,

materials, etc. for commencement of the work. It had kept the

Public Works Department informed about all these impediments.

However, the Public Works Department has always reacted with

indifference or lethargy. After the initiation of works at the site, a

number of impediments, including restrictions due to Covid-19

pandemic, impeded the pace of the project. Further, the works

related to the CCTV surveillance was arbitrarily descoped,

causing opportunity loss and loss of profit to the fourth

respondent as the work amounting to Rs.42.43 crore was

descoped from the agreement.

12. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent next

submitted that the fourth respondent is diligently carrying on the

works at the site and about 95% of the works are completed and

out of the total bill of Rs.100.78 crore submitted by the fourth

respondent, the PWD has only settled Rs.69.11 crore and

currently, there is an outstanding of Rs.31.67 crore due to it by

the PWD. According to the fourth respondent, lack of timely

PIL No. 34 of 2022 Page |9

payments has seriously impeded its speed and affected the

timely delivery of the project and it will be in a position to ensure

completion of its contractual obligation within a period of three

months, only if the payments due to it are made within the time

and the rate of the deviations and extra items are approved by

the Department.

13. In reply, the learned Additional Advocate General,

by producing the present status of payment of bills settled to the

fourth respondent for the work "Construction of Capital Complex

(Civil Secretariat Component)", submitted that the fourth

respondent has submitted excessive bills beyond the value of the

work, which is payable as per agreement. The Executive

Engineer of Public Works Department returned the bills to make

corrections vide letters dated 27.1.2023 and 25.3.2023. The

probable liability amount of the fourth respondent may be

Rs.18.90 crore approximately.

14. The learned Additional Advocate General again by

referring to the present status of payment of bills submitted that

there is more to recover than to pay to the fourth respondent.

Therefore, the completion of the subject project is not related on

the payment to the fourth respondent.

PIL No. 34 of 2022 P a g e | 10

15. We have considered the rival submissions and also

perused materials available on record.

16. The grievance of the petitioner is that due to parking

of vehicles along both sides of the National Highway in front of

the Secretariat, there is traffic congestion, which is mainly for the

reason of non-completion of the construction work of Civil

Secretariat Component. Therefore, a direction may be issued to

the official respondents to complete the balance work of Capital

Complex (Civil Secretariat Component) at Mantripukhri, Imphal

within a time frame.

17. The official respondents contended that no

representation was submitted by the petitioner to the authorities

for remedial action before filing the public interest litigation and

on that sole ground, the present public interest litigation is liable

to be dismissed. Coming to the traffic congestion alleged by the

petitioner, it is the say of the official respondents that the vehicles

parked on the National Highway-102 in front of the Manipur

Secretariat are managed by the Imphal Municipality and action is

being taken against the vehicles parked illegally.

18. The non-submission of the representation to the

respondent authorities for remedial measures before filing the

PIL No. 34 of 2022 P a g e | 11

public interest litigation would not in any way technically affect

the present petition for the simple reason that the cause brought

to the notice of this Court by the petitioner by way of this public

interest litigation assumes larger public interest. There is no

quarrel that if anyone wants to take up the matter that demands

Government action, he has to first raise that issue with the

authorities, bring it to their knowledge and ask them how are they

going to solve it, for which he has to send a representation in the

first place to authorities. But in the case on hand, the situation is

traffic congestion within the heart of Imphal City, particularly,

eastern side of the present Manipur Secretariat along the

National Highway, which has been witnessed by the Government

officials, including the police personnel day in and day out. The

work contractor, namely the fourth respondent, also stated that if

the subject project is completed, the traffic will be decongested

form the Highway adjacent to the existing Secretariat. When

such being the statement of the fourth respondent and the traffic

congestion alleged by the petitioner in the present public interest

litigation is not vague, the non-submission of representation by

the petitioner to the respondent authorities for remedial

measures before filing the public interest litigation is not affected

the case of the petitioner.

PIL No. 34 of 2022 P a g e | 12

19. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the

credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or

nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being

not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity

and seriousness involved. The Court has to strike balance

between two conflicting interests - (i) nobody should be allowed

to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the

character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to

avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique

motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the

Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to

see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does

not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the

Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly

while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome

interlopers impersonating as public spirited holy men. They

masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the

name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the

public or even of their own to protect.

20. Public interest litigation was intended to mean

nothing more than what words themselves said, namely "litigation

in the interest of the public".

PIL No. 34 of 2022 P a g e | 13

21. It is settled law that a writ petitioner who comes to

the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean

hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart,

clean mind and clean objective.

22. In the instant case, the petitioner has approached

this Court with clean hands and for larger public interest. Since

we are satisfied with the credentials of the petitioner, prima facie

correctness of the information given by him and also the

information given by the petitioner being not vague, the present

public interest litigation at the hands of the petitioner is a bona

fide one.

23. It is the admitted case of both sides that the delay

in completion of the Civil Secretariat work has caused traffic

congestion on the Highway adjacent to the existing Secretariat

as both halves of the National Highway in front of the Secretariat

are occupied by the parked vehicles of the officers/employees

and securities of VIPs. The said traffic congestion has led to

inconvenience to the public passing through the eastern side of

the present Secretariat.

24. Though the Civil Secretariat work was started in the

year 2010 and even after about 13 years, the same has not been

PIL No. 34 of 2022 P a g e | 14

completed and there appears to be a blame by the fourth

respondent contractor on the respondent officials qua lack of

timely payment and delay by the Public Works Department in

approving the rates of the deviations and extra items. Though

the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there is

more to recover than to pay to the fourth respondent and the

completion of the project is not related with the payment to the

fourth respondent, nothing has been produced to prove the

same, except the status of payment of bills, which is a self-styled

note prepared and signed by the Executive Engineer, Building

Division No.I, PWD, Manipur. On the basis of such self-styled

undated note, it cannot be contended that excess payments were

made to the fourth respondent. The State Government has to be

a role model in settling the contractor for the work done by them

and because of non-payment, the work cannot be delayed, as

the contractor has to pay salaries to its employees for their hard

work done and settle the material cost to the traders.

25. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case and the larger public interest involved, the PIL No.34 of

2022 is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The respondent State is directed to

decongest the traffic on the National

PIL No. 34 of 2022 P a g e | 15

Highway in front of the Old Manipur

Secretariat by making arrangements for

proper park of vehicles on both sides.

Further, the respondent State is directed

to strictly enforce the traffic rules to

ensure illegal parked vehicles are

booked.

(ii) The respondent State and the fourth

respondent are directed to comply with

their contractual obligations qua the

completion of construction of Civil

Secretariat work.

(iii) The respondent State is directed to pay

the Outstanding dues as per the RA Bills

raised by the respondent No. 4 and also

approve the rates of deviations and extra

items regarding the Civil Secretariat work

at earliest.

(iv) The respondent State and the fourth

respondent are directed to co-operate

and work in concert with each other to

ensure that the Civil Secretariat work is to

be completed within a period of three

PIL No. 34 of 2022 P a g e | 16

months from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order.

(v) There will be no order as to costs.

                      JUDGE               ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE



       FR/NFR
    Sushil




PIL No. 34 of 2022