Manipur High Court
Ephrim Gangmei vs State Of Manipur & Ors on 30 November, 2023
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
SHOUGRAK Digitally signed by IN. 79
SHOUGRAKPAM [1]
PAM DEVANANDA
DEVANAND SINGH
Date: 2023.12.01
A SINGH 13:04:52 +05'30' IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 164 of 2022
Ephrim Gangmei ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Manipur & ors. ... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
30-11-2023
[1] Heard Mr. S. Worthing, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr. A. Vashum, learned GA appearing for the respondents
No. 1 to 4 and Mr. M. Gunedhor, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 5. None appeared for the respondent No. 6.
[2] The present writ petition had been filed assailing the letter of the
Joint Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur dated 18-11-2017
addressed to the Deputy Commissioners of all the Districts in the State of
Manipur directing, inter alia, to hold elections only in the villages where
there is no pending court cases regarding Chiefship/ Chairmanship of the
villages coupled with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the order
dated 25-10-2018 issued by the SDO, Longmai (Noney), Noney District,
Manipur by which the election of the members of the village authorities in
respect of Charoichagotlong-I and Charoichagotlong-II held on 28-12-2017
and 29-12-2017 respectively was cancelled.
[3] The case of the petitioner is that the election of the
members of the village authorities in respect of Charoichagotlong-I
and Charoichagotlong-II was held on 28-12-2017 and 29-12-2017
respectively strictly in terms of the provisions of the relevant rules and
according to the petitioner, he was elected as the Chairman of the village
authority of Charoichagotlong-I and submitted the proceeding of the said
election as well as the result of the said election to the SDO, Longmai and
the Deputy Commissioner, Noney District under cover of letters dated
28-02-2018 and 18-09-2018 respectively with a request for publishing the
WP(C) No. 164 OF 2022 Contd.../-
result of the said election in the Manipur Gazette at the earliest. According
to the petitioner, a Civil suit being O.S. No. 10 of 2014 between the
respondent No. 5 and 6 is pending before the competent Civil Court at
Tamenglong District regarding the dispute as to who is the real Khunbu/
Khullakpa of the said villages and that the dispute confines only to who is
the real Khunbu/ Khullakpa of the said village and no dispute or issue with
regard to election of the members of the said villages authorities is involved
at all. However, quite surprisingly, after holding the said election of the two
villages and declaration of the result, the SDO, Longmai, Noney, issued an
order dated 25-10-2018 thereby cancelling the election of the members of
the village authorities of Charoichagotlong-I and Charoichagotlong-II held
on 28-12-2017 and 29-12-2017 only on the ground that the said Original
Suit No. 10 of 2014 is pending before the competent Civil Court.
[4] Mr. S. Worthing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that as there is no dispute with regard to election of the
members of the village authorities, the direction given by the Joint
Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur under his letter dated
18-11-2017 to hold election in respect of only villages where there is no
pending court cases regarding Chiefship/ Chairmanship of the village and
the subsequent issuance of the impugned order dated 25-10-2018
cancelling the election of the members of village authorities of the said two
villages are ultra vires the provisions of the Manipur (Village Authorities in
Hills Areas) Act, 1956 and the rules made thereunder and that the same is
not sustainable in the eyes of law. It has also been submitted by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner that the issue raised in the present writ
petition is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 29-06-2016
passed by this court in WP(C) No. 220 of 2015 wherein it has been held as
under:-
"12. The Manipur (Village Authorities in Hills Areas) Act, 1956 provides
for constitution of the Village Authority which shall perform the
functions as provided under Section 16 of the Act and other
provisions of the Act and as such, the existence of a Village
Authority, which is in the nature of local body for the village
WP(C) No. 164 OF 2022 Contd.../-
administration, is of immense significance in the hills areas of the
State. Section 3 of the aforesaid Act provides for constitution of
an elected Village Authority. Section 3(4) further provides that
where there is a Chief Khullakpa in a village, he shall be the
ex-officio chairman of the Village Authority of that village and
where there is no such Chief or Khullakpa in the village, the
Chairman of the Village Authority of that village shall be elected
by the members of the Village Authority from among themselves.
It has been further stated that the term of office of the members
of Village Authorities shall be five years from the date appointed
for its first meeting."
"13. In the present case, what has prevented the constitution of the
Village Authority in the village is on account of dispute between
the petitioner and private respondent No. 4 as regards the office
of Chiefship/ Khullakpa of the said village. Because of the
aforesaid dispute pending before the Courts of law as mentioned
above, the constitution of the Village Authority in respect of the
Raengdailuang (Sadukhoiroi) village has been delayed, even
though election has been already held for election of the other
members of the Village Authority on 9.5.20011. Considering the
provisions of the Manipur (Village Authorities in Hills Areas) Act,
1956 and the important role it plays in the administration at the
village level, this court is of the view that any delay in constitution
of the Village Authority will be against the public interest and it
will be desirable that such Village Authority be constituted at the
earliest. Apparently, from the records of the case and also based
on submissions of counsel for the parties, there seems to be no
other hindrance on the declaration of the result of the Village
Authority except for the fact that there is a dispute about the
Chiefship of the village. There is nothing on record to show that
the election held on 9.5.2011 as regards the members of the
Village Authority is in dispute. Therefore, this court is of the view
that since there is no dispute as regards the election held on
9.5.2011 electing the members of the Village Authority of the
Raengdailuang (Sadukhoiroi) village, the result should be
declared. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court while disposing of the
WP(C) No. 282 of 2010 and CRP(Art. 227) No. 20 of 2009 on
4.11.2010 had specifically directed the respondents to hold the
election for constitution of the Village Authority of Raengdailuang
(Sadukhoiroi) village till Original Suit No. 16 of 2008 is finally
decided by strictly following the procedure for such election and
rules framed thereunder within a period of three months. This
direction of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court for holding of election
obviously would also include the consequential actions after
holding of election i.e. declaration of the result and the
constitution of the Village Authority and since there is no such
specific direction by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court not to
declare the result or not to act upon the result of the election, the
only natural course would be to allow declaration of the result of
WP(C) No. 164 OF 2022 Contd.../-
the election which was directed to be held. Of course, there was
an interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid SLP mentioned above, not to declare the result of the
election but such an interim order was not continued after the said
SLP was dismissed on 4.8.2014 The Hon'ble Supreme Court had
merely expressed the desire that the aforesaid Original Suit No.
16 of 2008 be disposed of at the earliest within a time frame.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that as regards the declaration
of the result of the election of the Village Authority held on
9.5.2011, there is no impediment from any quarter or by way of
any judicial order. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
result of the aforesaid election of the Village Authority of
Raengdailuang (Sadukhoiroi) village held on 9.5.2011 should be
declared and acted upon. However, still a issue remains, as under
the aforesaid Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956,
the constitution of the Village Authority will be completed only
when the Chairman is also elected or appointed and if there be
Chief/ Khullakpa of the said village he will be the ex-officio
Chairman. Since the status of Chiefship is not clear as on date,
which is stated to be the subject matter in the Civil Revision
Petition No. 11 of 2016, this Court is of the view that as regards
the Chairman of the Village Authority which will be constituted
upon declaration of the result of the election of the Village
Authority held on 9.5.2011, it shall be decided depending on the
order as may be passed in the aforesaid Civil Revision Petition
No. 11 of 2016 for the interim period which will be subject to the
final order/decree that may be passed in the pending Original Suit
No. 1 of 2012/22 of 2012."
"14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed with the direction
that the result of the election of the Village Authority held on
9.5.2011 in respect of Raengdailuang (Sadukhoiroi) village be
declared immediately and the Chairman of the Village Authority
will be the Chief/Khullakpa of the said village depending on the
result of the Civil Revision Petition No. 11 of 2016 which is stated
to have been finally heard and reserved for judgment. It is also
clarified that in the event, for any reason whatsoever, the
Chief/Khullakpa of the Village Authority could not be ascertained,
the authorities will consider invoking the provisions under
Section 3(4) of the Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act,
1956 which provides that where there is no such Chief or
Khullakpa in the village, the Chairman of the Village Authority of
that village shall be elected by the members of the Village
Authority from among themselves, as the fate of an elected local
body cannot be kept in suspension and left to the tender mercy of
dispute of two individuals over the Chiefship. It is accordingly
directed that the result of the election of the Village Authority
members held on 09.05.2011 shall be declared within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
WP(C) No. 164 OF 2022 Contd.../-
The authorities are also directed to take all the consequential and
attending actions to make the Village Authority functional."
[5] Mr. A. Vashum, learned GA appearing for the official
respondents submitted that the election of the said two villages was held
in the month of December, 2017 and as per the provision of Section 6 of
the Manipur (Village Authorities in Hills Areas) Act, 1956, the term of office
of the members of the elected Village authorities is only for five years. It
has also been submitted by the learned GA that since more than five years
had already lapsed from the date of holding and declaration of the election
result, it will be just and proper to direct the authorities to hold a fresh
election in respect of the said two villages. The learned GA further placed
before this court a letter dated 28-03-2023 issued by the Deputy Secretary
(TA & Hills), Government of Manipur, directing the Deputy Commissioners
of all the hill Districts to submit the details/ list of recognized villages where
village authorities election are proposed to be held and that the authorities
have already initiated the process for holding election of the village
authorities in hill areas including the two villages in question. On the other
hand, Mr. M. Gunedhor, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.
5 submitted that the original suit between the private respondents No. 5
and 6 is still pending before the competent Civil Court and the issue as to
who is the rightful Khunbu/ Khullakpa of the said villages is yet to be
decided.
[6] After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, this court is of the
considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie
case that the cancellation of the election of the said two villages is
unreasonable, arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of the aforesaid act.
The authorities cannot act arbitrarily and unreasonably without any
sanction of law to gave direction to hold election in respect of only villages
where there is no pending court case regarding Chiefship/ Chairmanship
of the village and to cancel the election of the members of village
authorities of the said villages only on the ground that there is a Civil Suit
WP(C) No. 164 OF 2022 Contd.../-
pending with regard to who is the rightful Khunbu/ Khullakpa of the said
two villages. Such action is ultra vires the provisions of Section 3 of the
Manipur (Village Authorities in Hills Areas) Act, 1956 wherein it is provided
that the members of the village authorities shall be elected and that in case
there is no Chief or Khullakpa of the village, the Chairman of the village
authority shall be elected from amongst the elected members.
[7] In my considered view, even if there is dispute between the
respondents No. 5 and 6 with regard to who is the rightful Khunbu/
Khullakpa of the said villages before the competent Civil Court, that cannot
be the reason for delaying the election of members of the village authorities
or for cancelling the election of members of the village authorities as
provided under Section 3 of the said act. This court has also already
explained elaborately and succinctly in its judgment and order dated
29-06-2016, referred to hereinabove, that even if there is dispute with
regard to the claim of Chiefship/ Khunbu/ Khullakpa, that cannot be the
reason for deferring or for not declaring the result of election of the said
villages and that the result of election held in such villages should be
declared and the Chairman of the village authorities should be elected from
amongst the elected members till the disposal of the dispute. In my
considered view, the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Court is
exactly applicable in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ
petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) The impugned letter dated 18-11-2017 issued by the Joint
Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur and the
impugned order dated 25-10-2018 issued by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Longmai (Noney), Noney District, Manipur are hereby
quashed and set aside;
(ii) As nearly six years had already lapsed from the date of election
of the petitioner and as the authorities have initiated the process
for holding a fresh election of the village authorities of the hill
districts of Manipur, including the two villages in question, this
WP(C) No. 164 OF 2022 Contd.../-
court is not inclined to grant the reliefs sought for by the
petitioner in the present writ petition for declaring the result of
the earlier election and for allowing the elected members to
perform their duties; and
(iii) It is made clear that the election of members of the said two
villages should be conducted strictly in terms of the provisions of
the aforesaid act and rules and the pendency of the aforesaid
Civil Suit should not be a ground or reason for deferring the
election and in declaring the result of election, which has been
initiated by the authorities.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is
disposed of. Parties are to bear their own cost.
JUDGE
Devananda
WP(C) No. 164 OF 2022 Contd.../-
