Manipur High Court
Thingbaijam Deben Singh vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 13 October, 2023
SHAMURAILATPAM Digitally signed by
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2023.10.13 16:47:16 +05'30' Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 729 of 2021
Thingbaijam Deben Singh, aged about 50 years, S/o
Thingbaijam Damu @ Damudor Singh of
Thangmeiband HIjam Leikai, P.O. Imphal & P.S.
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin 795001.
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Addl. Chief
Secretary (Works)-cum-Estate Officer, Government
of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, Imphal West
District, Pin No. 795001.
2. The Executive Engineer, Building Division-II PWD,
Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal,
Imphal West District, Pin No. 795001.
3. The Director, Family Welfare Services, Government
of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, Imphal West
District, Pin No. 795001.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Imphal West District,
Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel,
Imphal West District, Manipu, Pin 795001.
5. Irengbam Prabinkumar Singh, Information Assistant
O/o DIPR, Government of Manipur & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin 795001.
.... Respondents
WP(C) No. 729 of 2021
Page |2
6. Angomjambam Sunita Devi, aged about 42 years,
D/o (L) Angomjambam Bidhu Singh of U P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin 795001.
.... Proforma Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioners :: Mr. S. Rupachandra, Sr. Adv.
For the Respondents :: Mr. H. Samarjit, GA for R- 1 to 4
Mr. H. Chandrakumar, Adv. for
R- 5 and 6.
.
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 05.10.2023
Date of Judgment & Order :: 13.10.2023
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
Heard Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned senior counsel for
the petitioner; Mr. H. Samarjit, learned Government Advocate for
the official respondents No. 1 to 4 and Mr. H. Chandrakumar,
learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 and 6.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to
quash portion of the order dated 8.3.2021 and to allow the petitioner
and his family to stay in the allotted Quarters being No.Type-III/F-
57 at Langol Housing Complex.
WP(C) No. 729 of 2021
Page |3
3. The case of the petitioner is that he is working as driver
in the Directorate of Family Welfare Services, Government of
Manipur. He has been allotted Quarters being Type-III/F-57 at
Langol Housing Complex vide order dated 24.9.1999. While he
was occupying the said quarters, he and his mother and father got
inflicted with ailments one after another since the year 2017. During
treatment of the petitioner, his mother and father, the petitioner
stayed at his own house leaving the quarters and the petitioner
allowed one of his relatives, namely the sixth respondent, as the
family caretaker of it. During the second wave of Covid, the first
respondent issued the impugned order cancelling the quarters
allotted to the petitioner without giving any notice to him. On
7.8.2021, the petitioner submitted a representation to the first
respondent stating that he has been occupying the quarters for
more than 15 years and rents have been deducted regularly from
his salary and he left it by keeping a family caretaker.
4. Further case of the petitioner is that Eviction Case
No.8 of 2021 was taken up by the fourth respondent in respect of
the quarters in question wherein the second respondent and sixth
respondent are parties. Even if the eviction case is to be taken up,
it should be between the petitioner and the Government authority,
inasmuch the said impugned order does not allow the authority to
WP(C) No. 729 of 2021
Page |4
hand over the quarters to the fifth respondent. The petitioner was
served with summon on 11.10.2021 thereby asking his personal
appearance before the fourth respondent on 18.10.2021. Since the
petitioner could not appear, he sent his wife and submitted an
application requesting to give him 15 days time as the process for
continuation of the quarters allotted to him is going on. The quarters
in question was locked by the officials on 8.10.2021. On
18.10.2021, the petitioner submitted a representation to the
authority. Despite receipt of the said representation, the authority
has not passed any order till date. Hence, the writ petition.
5. The respondents 1 and 2 filed affidavit-in-opposition
stating that the petitioner has sublet the quarters in question to
Sovita Devi an unknown person and at that point of time, there was
an outstanding due of Rs.48,200/- as licence fee i/c 2% surcharges
as per the office record of the Executive Engineer, BD-II, PWD. It
is stated that the present occupant who was sublet by the petitioner
is an unauthorized person and to be vacated from the quarters as
the said quarters is required to be handed over the new allottee
Irungbam Prabikumar Singh. As the present occupant is an
unauthorized occupant, the eviction process is being taken up by
the Sub Divisional Officer, Lamphel. Hence, prayed for dismissal
of the writ petition.
WP(C) No. 729 of 2021
Page |5
6. The fifth respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating
that after making an enquiry, the Executive Engineer, Building
Division-II, PWD, submitted a status report dated 10.2.2021 to the
Under Secretary (Works), Government of Manipur, stating that
Quarters No.Type-III/F-57 which was allotted to the petitioner vide
order dated 14.1.2000 was found to have been occupied by one
unauthorized person namely Angomjambam Sunita Devi from
Uripok. On the recommendation of the House Allotment Committee
in its meeting held on 2.3.2021, the Quarters Type-III/F-57 earlier
allotted to the petitioner was cancelled and the same was
temporarily allotted to the fifth respondent vide order dated 8.3.2021
and the said order is still valid. The medical grounds or the ailments
of the petitioner's parents as well as himself have nothing to do with
the present case, as the said quarters is illegally occupied by
someone other than the petitioner. The sixth respondent is in
occupation of the quarters illegally without any authority. Finding
that someone is in occupation of the quarters, the concerned
authority had taken up an eviction case against the illegal occupant
to evict from the said quarters. On 10.9.2021, the petitioner and the
sixth respondent appeared before the SDO, Lamphel and the
petitioner admitted the fact that his allotment was cancelled. The
petitioner and the sixth respondent requested the authority few
more days to vacate the quarters voluntarily by 18.10.2021, failing
WP(C) No. 729 of 2021
Page |6
which they have no objection in the eviction carried out by the
concerned authorities. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ
petition.
7. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. S. Rupachandra,
the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was allotted quarters being Type-III/F-57 at Langol
Housing Complex on 24.9.1999 and while he was occupying the
said quarters, he and his parents got inflicted with ailments and for
treatment purpose all of them were stayed at their own house
allowing the sixth respondent who is his relative to take care of it.
While so, during the second wave of Covid i.e. on 8.3.2021, the first
respondent issued the impugned order cancelling the quarters
allotted to the petitioner without giving any notice to him.
8. According to the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, the petitioner has been occupying the quarters for more
than 15 years and rents have been deducted regularly from his
salary and he left the quarters by keeping the caretaker and the
petitioner never sublet the quarters to the sixth respondent.
9. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the
eviction case was taken up behind the back of the petitioner and
even if the eviction case is to be taken up, it should be between the
WP(C) No. 729 of 2021
Page |7
petitioner and the Government authority. The petitioner was served
with summon in the eviction case for appearance on 11.10.2021
and the quarters was locked on 8.10.2021. On 18.10.2021, the
petitioner submitted a representation to the concerned authority and
despite receipt of the same, no order has been passed on it till date.
Thus, a prayer has been made to quash the impugned order and to
allow the petitioner to stay in the quarters being Type-III/F-57 at
Langol Housing Complex.
10. Per contra, Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Government
Advocate for the respondent State submitted that the petitioner has
sublet the quarters to the sixth respondent and that there was an
outstanding due of Rs.48,200/- as per the records maintained by
the Executive Engineer, Building Division-II. The sixth respondent
who was in occupation of the quarters in question is an
unauthorized occupant and she should be vacated from the said
quarters. Since the sixth respondent is an unauthorized occupant,
the eviction case was registered and eviction process is being taken
up by the SDO, Lamphel. The learned Government Advocate
submitted that on the recommendation of the House Allotment
Committee, the quarters in question was allotted to the fifth
respondent. Therefore, there is no bonafide in the claim made by
WP(C) No. 729 of 2021
Page |8
the petitioner. Thus, a prayer has been made to dismiss the writ
petition.
11. Mr. H. Chandrakumar, the learned counsel for the fifth
respondent submitted that after making enquiry, the Executive
Engineer, BD-II, PWD submitted a status report to the Under
Secretary (Works) stating that the quarters earlier allotted to the
petitioner was occupied by the sixth respondent unauthorisedly and
that on the recommendation of the House Allotment Committee, the
quarters in question was allotted to the fifth respondent cancelling
the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. In fact, in the eviction
case, the petitioner and the sixth respondent appeared before the
SDO and agree to vacate the quarters voluntarily by 18.10.2021.
Despite the assurance given in the eviction case, with an ulterior
motive, the present writ petition has been filed. Since the allotment
in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled, he has no right to
seek permission to stay in the quarters along with his family
members. Thus, a prayer has been made to dismiss the writ
petition.
12. This Court considered the rival submissions and also
perused the materials available on record.
WP(C) No. 729 of 2021
Page |9
13. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned
order has been passed without notice to the petitioner. The locking
of the quarters in question on 8.10.2021 is without the knowledge
of the petitioner.
14. On the other hand, it is the plea of the respondents 1
and 2 that the petitioner sublet the quarters in dispute to the sixth
respondent and since the present occupant is an unauthorized
person, the respondent authorities have initiated eviction
proceedings. According to the respondents 1 and 2, as per the
records maintained by the Executive Engineer, BD-II, PWD,
Manipur, there was an outstanding due of Rs.48,200/-.
15. Similarly, it is the plea of the fifth respondent that the
allotment of the petitioner was cancelled, as he sublet the quarters
to the sixth respondent and upon considering the application of the
fifth respondent, the quarters in question was allotted to the fifth
respondent cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner.
In fact, in the eviction case, the petitioner and the sixth respondent
appeared and undertook to vacate the quarters by 18.10.2021
voluntarily, failing which they have no objection in the eviction
carried out by the concerned authorities. The allotment given to the
petitioner was cancelled lawfully and the same was allotted to the
fifth respondent by following all the norms and procedures.
WP(C) No. 729 of 2021
P a g e | 10
16. The petitioner is working as driver in the Directorate of
Family Welfare Services, Government of Manipur and he has been
allotted quarters Type-III/F-57 at Langol Housing Complex on
24.9.1999. The said quarters allotted to the petitioner was
cancelled by the first respondent under the impugned order alleging
that the petitioner sublet the quarters to the sixth respondent.
According to the petitioner, during the second wave of Covid, the
petitioner and his parents stayed in their own house leaving the
quarters for time being and allowed the sixth respondent as their
family caretaker to stay in the said quarters. According to the
petitioner, he never sublet the quarters to the sixth respondent.
17. In the impugned order, it has been stated that, on the
recommendation of the House Allotment Committee, the quarters
Type-III/F-57 at Langol Housing Complex allotted to the petitioner
was cancelled and the same is temporarily allotted to the fifth
respondent, who is working as Information Assistant in the office of
DIPR, Manipur.
18. It is prerogative of the concerned authority to cancel
and allot a Government quarters depending upon the policy of the
authority and especially when the allotted quarters has been
occupied by someone other than the one who is actually allotted to.
WP(C) No. 729 of 2021
P a g e | 11
19. In the case on hand, as rightly argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, before issuing the impugned order
cancelling the allotment of quarters, no notice was served upon the
petitioner. Nothing has been produced by the respondent
authorities to show the department was informed about the alleged
sublet by the petitioner. The recommendation of the House
Allotment Committee stated in the impugned order has not been
placed on record. It is the bounden duty of the respondents 1 and
2 to call for explanation/remarks from the petitioner before
cancelling the allotted quarters, as he was occupying the quarters
right from 1999. The impugned order also does not speak about
the alleged sublet to the sixth respondent by the petitioner. In the
absence of any prior notice to the petitioner, the impugned
cancellation order made against the petitioner is not legally
sustainable and thus the first respondent has violated the principles
of natural justice. In this regard, the law is well settled that principles
of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the
Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the
individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a
judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an
order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent
such authority from doing injustice. Before cancellation of the
allotment, sufficient opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner
WP(C) No. 729 of 2021
P a g e | 12
and, as stated supra, any order passed behind the back of the party
affecting his rights is nullity in law.
20. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the spot
inspection and noting down of the staying of the sixth respondent in
the quarters in question are all subsequent to the passing of the
impugned order. Nothing has been produced by the respondent
authorities to show that before issuing the impugned order, any
inspection is made by them.
21. In the notice dated 24.4.2021 annexed to the writ
petition, the Sub Divisional Officer, Lamphel stated that spot enquiry
has been conducted by the SDC/IW (Central vide letter
No.8/SDC/IW(C)/ Evict/2020/28 dated 22.04.2021 and it has been
reported that the Govt. Quarter No.T-III/F-57 at Langol Housing
Complex is being occupied unauthorisedly by Angomjambam
Sunita Devi. From the said notice also, it is clear that after issuing
the impugned order only, spot enquiry was conducted. The
affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 does not
speak about the spot enquiry conducted by the authorities before
issuing the impugned order.
22. By relying upon the letter of the Executive Engineer,
BD-II dated 10.2.2021, the learned Government Advocate
WP(C) No. 729 of 2021
P a g e | 13
contended that the Assistant Engineer-II of Building Division
reported that Quarters Type-III/F-57 allotted to the petitioner does
not physically occupy since a long time back and sublet to the sixth
respondent and there is an outstanding due of Rs.48,200/- as
licence fee i/c 2% surcharges as per the office record. The said
status report dated 10.2.2021 has not been communicated to the
petitioner nor called for any explanation from the petitioner. There
is no whisper about the status report dated 10.2.2021 in the
impugned order. When the rent is automatically deducted from the
monthly salary of the petitioner, how it could be said that there is
outstanding due of Rs.48,200/-. This has not been clarified by the
respondents 1 and 2. In the case on hand, there appears to be a
real prejudice caused to the petitioner for issuance of the impugned
cancellation order. Thus, on the sole ground of violation of the
principles of natural justice, the impugned order is liable to be
quashed.
23. Insofar as the initiation of the eviction case by the Sub
Divisional Officer, Lamphel is concerned, the learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the fourth respondent has taken up the
eviction case, wherein the second respondent and the sixth
respondent alone shown as parties. According to the learned
WP(C) No. 729 of 2021
P a g e | 14
counsel, if any eviction case is to be initiated, it should be between
the Government authorities and the petitioner.
24. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the fifth
respondent argued that pursuant to the summons issued to the
petitioner and the sixth respondent, they appeared before the SDO,
Lamphel and agreed to vacate the quarters by 18.9.2021 and the
said promise has not been honoured and, again on 18.10.2021, the
wife of the petitioner appeared before the SDO and it was agreed
to vacate the quarters by 21.10.2021. According to the learned
counsel for the fifth respondent, contrary to the undertaking, the
petitioner has filed the writ petition. Therefore, the same cannot be
entertained.
25. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the impugned
order dated 8.3.2021 and to allow the petitioner and his family
members to stay in the allotted quarters being Type-III/F-57. This
Court already held that the impugned order has been passed
without notice to the petitioner and therefore the same is not legally
sustainable and in violation of the principles of natural justice. In
view of the above finding arrived at by this Court, any proceedings,
much less the eviction case, initiated in respect of the quarters
Type-III/F-57 cannot be looked into, as the very basis of the
cancellation order is suffer from the principles of natural justice.
WP(C) No. 729 of 2021
P a g e | 15
26. It appears that the writ petition has been filed on
22.10.2021. On 25.10.2021, when the writ petition was taken up for
hearing, this Court, while noting down the appearance of the
respective counsel, ordered status-quo as of today shall be
maintained by both the parties. According to the respondents, the
quarters in question was locked on 8.10.2021.
27. Pending writ petition, the petitioner filed MC (WP(C))
No.98 of 2022 praying to allow the petitioner and his family
members to enter and occupy the quarters in question or stay of the
operation of the impugned order dated 8.3.2021 alleging that the
quarters in question was locked by the respondents on 8.10.2021
and inside the quarters, lot of belongings are there. If the petitioner
is not permitted to enter into the quarters, the belongings of the
petitioner will be damaged and destroyed by rats, fungus etc. It is
also the plea of the petitioner that though the petitioner is not
occupying the quarters, the authority is regularly deducting the rent
for the quarters from the salary of the petitioner. In support, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has produced certain challans
pertaining to the year 2022. This has not been controverted by the
respondent authorities. According to the parties, the quarters is
under lock for the past two years. As rightly argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the belongings kept inside the quarters
WP(C) No. 729 of 2021
P a g e | 16
will naturally got damaged and destroyed when they are not in use
properly. Further, it is not the case of the respondent authorities,
that despite the request to take back the belongings inside the
quarters, the petitioner has not come forward and take back the
belongings kept inside the quarters.
28. This Court held that the impugned order, thereby
cancelling the allotment of quarters in favour of the petitioner, is in
violation of principles of natural justice. Since no notice was issued
to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, this Court is of
the firm view that on the sole ground of violation of the principles of
natural justice, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Since
the impugned cancellation order is not sustainable in the eyes of
law, the respondent authorities are to allow the petitioner to occupy
the quarters in question. The allotment of the quarters in question
made in favour of the fifth respondent will not affect the rights of the
petitioner, as by infringing the rights of the earlier allottee, no new
allotment cannot be issued.
29. In the result,
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 8.3.2021
passed by the first respondent is set aside.
WP(C) No. 729 of 2021
P a g e | 17
(iii) The matter is remanded back to the first
respondent with a direction to the said
authority to enquire into the matter and
pass appropriate order after affording
reasonable opportunity to the petitioner on
merits and in accordance with law.
(iv) The said exercise is directed to be
completed within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
(v) Till such time, the respondent authorities
are directed to allow the petitioner and his
family members to occupy the quarters in
question.
(vi) No costs.
(vii) Consequently, MC (WP(C)) No.98 of 2022
is closed.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Sushil
WP(C) No. 729 of 2021
