Manipur High Court
Unknown vs Shri Mutum Churamani Meetei on 30 October, 2023
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2023.10.30 16:49:57 +05'30' Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(Rev.Pet.) No. 16 of 2023
Ref:- Review Pet. No. 12 of 2023
1. Tribal Youth Volunteers' Organisation having its Office
at Community Centre, Ward No. 7, Tamenglong
District Headquarter, P.O. & P.S. Tamenglong-
795141, Manipur being Regd. No. 7 of 1991
represented by its Chairman Mr. Chuimei, aged about
41 years, S/o AS. Winson Zimik, resident of
Hamleikhong, Hungpung, P.O. & P.S. Ukhrul, District
Ukhrul, Manipur- 795142.
2. All Tribal Disabled Union, represented by its President
Mr. Momo Tantanga, aged about 31 years, S/o Ks
Angkha, having its registered office at Kabo Leikai,
Dewlahland, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal East Distrcit,
Manipur - 795001.r.
... APPLICANTS
-VERSUS-
1. Shri Mutum Churamani Meetei, aged about 62 years,
S/O Late M. Iboton Meetei of Kabo Leikai Dewlahland,
P.O. & P.S. - Porompat, District - Imphal East,
Manipur who is the Secretary of the Meetei (Meitei)
Tribe Union being Regd. No. 15 of 2022.
MC(Rev.Pet.) No. 16 of 2023 (Ref:- Review Pet. No. 12 of 2023)
Page |2
2. Shri Puyam Ranachandra Singh, aged about 43
years, S/o Puyam Kushumani Singh of Langathel
Laikhom Bazar, P.O. & P.S. - Thoubal, District -
Thoubal, Manipur who is the Member of the Meetei
(Meitei) Tribe Union being Regd. No. 15 of 2022.
3. Shri Thokchom Gopimohon Singh, aged about 73
years, S/O Late Thokchom Somokanta Singh of
Keishamthong Laisom Leirak, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal,
District- Imphal West, Manipur - 795001 who is the
Member of the Meetei (Meitei) Tribe Union being
Regd. No. 15 of 2022.
4. Shri Sagolsem Robindro Singh, aged about 66 years,
S/o S. Amu Singh of Sagolband Khamnam Bazar,
P.O. - Imphal & P.S.- Lamphel, District - Imphal
West, Manipur- 795001 who is the Member of the
Meetei (Meitei) Tribe Union being Regd. No. 15 of
2022.
5. Shri Elangbam Baburam, aged about 76 years, S/o (L)
E. Leipakmacha Singh of Keirak Khongnang Leikai,
P.S. Kakching, Manipur who is the Member of the
Meetei (Meitei) Tribe Union being Regd. No 15 of
2022.
6. Shri Leihaorambam Projit Singh, aged about 62 years,
S/o L. Surjit Singh of Sorok Atingbi Khunou Hilgat,
P.O. & P.S. - Jiribam, District - Jiribam, Manipur -
795115 who is the Member of the Meetei (Meitei)
Tribe Union being Regd. No. 15 of 2022.
MC(Rev.Pet.) No. 16 of 2023 (Ref:- Review Pet. No. 12 of 2023)
Page |3
7. Shri Thiyam Somendro Singh, aged about 46 years,
S/o Th. Ibobi Singh of Ningthoukhong Ward No. 5,
Ningthoukhong Kha Bishnupur, Manipur - 795126
who is the Member of the Meetei (Meitei) Tribe Union
being Regd. No. 15 of 2022 and
8. Shri Mutum Nilamani Singh, aged about 61 years, S/o
M. Jadhop Singh of Chingdong Leikai, P.O. & P.S.-
Jiribam, District- Jiribam, Manipur - 795115 who is the
Member of the Meetei (Meitei) Tribe Union being
Regd. No. 15 of 2022.
... RESPONDENTS
9. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief
Secretary, Government of Manipur and its Office at
Babupara, Old Secretariat Complex, Imphal West,
Manipur - 795001.
10. The Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Manipur and its
Office at Old Secretariat Complex, Imphal, Manipur -
795001.
11. The Secretary, Tribal Affairs and Hills Department and
its Office at Old Secretariat Complex, Imphal, Manipur
and
12. The Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government
of India, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi - 110001.
... OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS
MC(Rev.Pet.) No. 16 of 2023 (Ref:- Review Pet. No. 12 of 2023)
Page |4
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Applicants :: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv.
Mr. LH Decemhring, Adv.
Mrs. Hetvi Patel, Adv.
For the Respondents :: Mr. M. Devananda, Addl. AG
Mr. N. Jotendro, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kh. Samarjit, DSGI
.
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 11.10.2023
Date of Judgment & Order :: 30.10.2023
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
Heard Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel
for the applicants; M. N. Jotendro, the learned senior counsel for
the private respondents; Mr. M. Devananda, the learned Additional
Advocate General for the respondent State and Mr. Kh. Samarjit,
the learned DSGI for the respondent Union of India.
2. This petition has been filed by the applicants to
implead them as party respondents in Review Application No.12 of
2023 filed by the private respondents.
3. Review Application No.12 of 2023 has been filed by
the respondents 1 to 8 to review/modify para No.17(iii) of the
MC(Rev.Pet.) No. 16 of 2023 (Ref:- Review Pet. No. 12 of 2023)
Page |5
judgment and order dated 27.3.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.229 of
2023 as under:
"The first respondent shall consider the case of
the petitioners by sending recommendation which
would be in the wisdom and realm of the State
Government in reply to the letter dated
29.05.2013 of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs,
Government of India, expeditiously preferred
within a period of one year from the date of order
in WP(C) No.229 of 2023 dated 27.03.2023 in
term of the averments set out in the writ petition
and in the line of the order passed in W.P.(C)
No.4281 of 2002 dated 26.05.2003 by the
Gauhati High Court."
4. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel for the
applicants submitted that filing of Review Application No.12 of
2023 itself is mala fide and designed to sabotage the appeal
pending before the Division Bench of this Court because if the
order is modified the appeal cannot be allowed and a fresh appeal
will have to be filed.
5. The learned senior counsel for the applicants would
submit that the applicants are likely to be affected by any order to
be made in the Review Application, as the Review Application is
MC(Rev.Pet.) No. 16 of 2023 (Ref:- Review Pet. No. 12 of 2023)
Page |6
not maintainable. The order sought in review amounts to a re-
hearing and re-working which does not fall within the parameters
of the review. Further, no order even to consider the
representation can be made by this Court, as there is no material
on record and no material exists to show that the Meiteis/Meeteis
are backward or even to show that they are tribals. Therefore, the
applicants are necessary parties in the Review Application No.12
of 2023. No prejudice would be caused to the private
respondents, if the applicants are impleaded as party respondents
in the Review Application No.12 of 2023. Thus, a prayer has been
made to implead the applicants as party respondents in Review
Application No.12 of 2023.
6. Per contra, Mr. N. Jotendro, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the private respondents/Review petitioner
submitted that the respondents 1 to 8 herein are not barred by any
law to prefer the Review Application as they have not preferred
any appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 27.3.2023
passed in the writ petition. However, the second applicant herein
along with other applicants have filed M.C. (WA) No.88 of 2023
praying for allowing them to file third party appeal against the
judgment and order dated 27.3.2023 passed in the writ petition
and the said miscellaneous case is pending consideration.
MC(Rev.Pet.) No. 16 of 2023 (Ref:- Review Pet. No. 12 of 2023)
Page |7
7. The learned senior counsel for the respondents 1 to
8 further submitted that even if the Review Application filed by the
respondents 1 to 8 is allowed, the right of the applicants is not
affected. Moreover, the applicants have failed to demonstrate
what right has been affected while directing to the State
Government to expedite the process for consideration which is
pending for the last 10 years and which decision of the State
Government either may be positive or negative but the decision
should be taken up in accordance with law.
8. The learned senior counsel for the respondents 1 to
8 would submit that the applicants do not have any right to seek
the relief for impleadment in the present Review Application and,
thus, a prayer has been made to dismiss the present petition.
9. This Court also heard the submissions of Mr. M.
Devananda, the learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondent State as well as Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned DSGI for the
respondent Union of India.
10. The applicants seek to implead them as party
respondents in Review Application No.12 of 2023 filed by the
respondents 1 to 8 herein mainly on the ground that the applicants
are likely to be vitally affected by any order to be made in the
MC(Rev.Pet.) No. 16 of 2023 (Ref:- Review Pet. No. 12 of 2023)
Page |8
Review Application No.12 of 2023, as the said Review Application
at the hands of the respondents 1 to 8 is not at all maintainable.
Further, as against the order dated 27.3.2023 passed in the writ
petition, an appeal has already been preferred.
11. The learned senior counsel for the applicants
contended that direction to the State Government to consider the
representation of Meetei parties cannot be made because no
material has been placed on record before the learned Single
Judge to show that the Meeteis are even a tribe of Manipur let
alone a Scheduled Tribe. The community which seeks to usurp
the benefits available to the Scheduled Tribe though they are a
dominant, forward, economically advanced and educationally
advanced community are doing mala fide. They seek to illegally
use the High Court as a post office wrongly assuming that the
High Court will mechanically refer the representation of the Meetei
to the State for consideration. The learned senior counsel further
submitted that the order of the High Court dated 27.3.2023
directing the State Government to consider the representation of
the Meetei will create the impression that if the High Court has
made such an order than surely there must be merit in such a
representation. This is why even an order "to consider" should not
be made. According to the learned senior counsel for the
MC(Rev.Pet.) No. 16 of 2023 (Ref:- Review Pet. No. 12 of 2023)
Page |9
applicants, the direction to the State Government to consider the
representation of the private respondents would have a cascading
effect as a precedent throughout the country as dominant groups
will make representation to the State and then rush to the High
Court to obtain similar such orders.
12. First of all, the merits of the Review Application filed
by the respondents 1 to 8 cannot be gone into in the present
petition for impleadment.
13. The point arises for consideration in the present
petition is whether the applicants are to be impleaded as party
respondents or not in the Review Application No.12 of 2023 as
prayed for by them.
14. The applicants herein are Tribal Youth Volunteers'
Organisation and All Tribal Disabled Union respectively. The
applicants themselves stated that they have filed MC (WA) No.88
of 2023 to permit them to file third party appeal against the order
dated 27.3.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.229 of 2023 and the said
miscellaneous case is pending consideration. Once the
applicants have filed appeal against the order dated 27.3.2023
passed in the writ petition, filing of petition to implead them as
MC(Rev.Pet.) No. 16 of 2023 (Ref:- Review Pet. No. 12 of 2023)
P a g e | 10
party respondents in the Review Application filed by the
respondents 1 to 3 is not permissible.
15. According to Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior
counsel for the applicants, as per Order 47, Rule 1 CPC, the
Review Petition No.12 of 2023 filed by the respondents 1 to 8 is
not maintainable, as the applicants have already preferred an
appeal. The respondents 1 to 8 can take all the pleas before the
appellate court. In fact, the hearing of the appeal on the last
occasion went on in respect of the arguments on the merits of the
appeal and the Division Bench orally observed that both parties
can argue the appeal itself and, therefore, it is not necessary to
proceed with the review.
16. As stated supra, the applicants themselves admitted
that the second applicant and others have filed an appeal against
the order dated 27.3.2023 passed in the writ petition. Once they
have invoked the appellate jurisdiction by filing an appeal, the
applicants have no right to seek impleadment in the review
application filed by the original writ petitioners. Since the
applicants have no right to seek the relief for impleadment in
Review Application No.12 of 2023, this Court is of the view that
the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
MC(Rev.Pet.) No. 16 of 2023 (Ref:- Review Pet. No. 12 of 2023)
P a g e | 11
17. Accordingly, MC (Rev.Pet) No.16 of 2023 in Review
Application No.12 of 2023 is dismissed. No costs.
It is made clear that the merits of the
review/modification, as prayed for by the respondents 1 to 8, have
not been delved into in this order.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sushil
MC(Rev.Pet.) No. 16 of 2023 (Ref:- Review Pet. No. 12 of 2023)
