Manipur High Court
The State Of Manipur Represented ... vs The Governing Body on 27 September, 2023
Page |1
Digitally
KABOR signed by IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
KABORAMBA
AMBAM M LARSON AT IMPHAL
LARSO Date:
2023.09.27
MC(W.A.) No.43 of 2023
N 15:30:04
(Ref:- W.A. No... of 2023)
+05'30'
(Ref:- W.P.(C) No.1057 of 2018)
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner (University
& Higher Education), Government of Manipur, Secretariat New
Building, Babupara, PO & PS Imphal West, Imphal West District,
Manipur - 795001.
2. The Commissioner/Secretary, Department of Finance, Government
of Manipur, Secretariat New Building, Babupara, PO & PS Imphal
West, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
3. The Director, University and Higher Education, Government of
Manipur, Neitaipat Chuthek, Imphal, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795001.
....... Applicant/s
- Versus -
1. The Governing Body, Mayai Lambi College, Yumnam Huidrom,
represented by its Secretary, Shri L. Prakash Singh about 56 years,
S/o (L) Nipamacha Singh, R/o Yumnam Huidrom, PO & PS Wangoi,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795009.
2. The Governing Body, Thambal Marik Lambi College, Oinam,
Bishenpur District, Re. by its Secretary, Shri W. Debit Singh aged
MC(W.A.) No.43 of 2023
Page |2
about 50 years, S/o W. Mangi Singh, R/o Oinam Mamang Leikai, PO
& PS Nambol, Bishenpur District, Manipur - 795134.
.... Respondent/s
3. The Chairman, Manipur Rural Bank, Keishampat Head Office,
Imphal West District, PO & PS Keishampat, Manipur - 795001.
4. The Branch Manager, Manipur Rural Bank, Nambol Branch, Nambol,
Bishnupur District, Manipur - 795134.
5. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bishenpur Branch,
Bishenpur District, Manipur - 795134.
6. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, (RUSA) Bishenpur
Branch, Bishenpur District, Manipur - 795134.
7. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Nambol Branch, Nambol,
Bishnupur District, Manipur - 795134.
8. The Principal i/c, Mayai Lambi College, Yumnam Huidrom, Mayai
Lambi, Yumnam Huidrom, Imphal, Manipur - 795009.
9. The Principal i/c, Thambal Marik College, Oinam, Tiddim Road,
Bishenpur District, Manipur - 795135.
.... Proforma Respondent/s
MC(W.A.) No.43 of 2023
Page |3
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Applicants : Mr. H. Debendra, Dy. AG
For the Respondents : Mr. D. Julius Riamei, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2
Mr. S. Samarjeet, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4
Mr. Sushilkumar, Advocate for Respondent No.7
Mr. P. Tamphamani, Advocate for Respondent No.8
Date of Hearing : 18.08.2023
Date of Judgment &
Order : 27.09.2023
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
(A. Guneshwar Sharma, J)
[1] The present application has been filed by the applicants under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Rule 3(2) of Chapter IV-A as
well as Rule 2 of the Chapter-VIII of the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019
for condoning an unintentional delay of 334 days in filing the accompanying
Writ Appeal.
MC(W.A.) No.43 of 2023
Page |4
[2] The brief fact of the present case is that the applicants filed the
accompanying Writ Appeal challenging the legality and propriety of the
impugned Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2022 passed by learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) No.1057 of 2018. The present Respondents, who were the
writ petitioners, filed W.P.(C) No.1057 of 2018 praying for directing the
State Respondents to allow the petitioners (respondents herein) to function
until the handing and taking over of Mayai Lambi College and Thambal Marik
College and to quash the order dated 20.10.2018 passed by the respondent
No.1 (applicant No.1 herein). The writ petition was disposed on 25.02.2022
with a direction to the State Respondents to absorb the 11(eleven)
employees (Teaching Staff-5 and Non-Teaching - 6) of the Thambal Marik
College, Oinam.
[2.1] Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.02.2022 passed in
W.P.(C) No.1057 of 2018, the accompanying Writ Appeal is preferred mainly
inter-alia on the grounds that the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that
the order dated 20.10.2018 was issued as a natural consequence of the
decision of the State Cabinet taken on 28.02.2018. The Ld. Single Judge,
also failed to give an opportunity to the State respondents to counter/reply
to the Addl. Affidavit filed by the petitioners on 24.02.2022. It is stated that
on 12.12.2022, the Administrative approval for preferring Appeal was
MC(W.A.) No.43 of 2023
Page |5
obtained. Thereafter, on 13.12.2022, the concerned File was referred to Law
Dept. and on 19.12.2022, the Deputy Secretary (Law) issued an Order
bearing No.5/29/2922-Case/L-(HC)Pt.dated 19-12-2022 for engagement of
Govt. Advocate to represent State Govt. The order dated 19 th December,
2022 issued by Deputy Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur is
reproduced below.
"GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR
SECRETARIAT:LAW & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
...
ORDERS
Imphal, the 19th December, 2022
No.5/29/2022-Case/L-(HC) Pt: The Governor of Manipur is
pleased to direct the Government Advocate (High Court),
Manipur to file Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of the High
Court of Manipur against the Judgment & Order dated
25.02.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Manipur in
W.P.(C) No.1057 of 2018 (The Governing Body, Mayai Lambi
College, Yumnam Huidrom & Anr. -versus- The State of Manipur
& Ors.) along with petition for stay of impugned order and
condonation of delay, if necessary.
By orders etc.,
(Patience Panmei)
Deputy Secretary (Law)
Government of Manipur."
MC(W.A.) No.43 of 2023
Page |6
[2.3] In pursuance of the Law Dept.'s order dated 19.12.2022,
engagement of Govt. Advocate (High Court) was issued for filing Appeal.
[3] Mr. H. Debendra, learned Dy. AG for the applicants has
submitted that while filing the accompanying Writ Appeal, there is an
unintentional and bona fide delay of 334 days which has been caused due to
the circumstances as explained hereunder:-
Sl. No. Date Reasons
1. 25-02-2022 Ld. Single Judge passed the impugned Order.
2. 28-04-2022 Communicated the order to Administrative
Department vide letter No.102/209/2018-
GA(C)/140 dated 28-04-2022.
3. 28-04-2022 Received Legal Notice from the side of the
Petitioners.
4. 05-05-2022 Called detailed report from the Directorate with
regards the Judgment & Order dated 25.2.2022
as the relevant records are in the custody of the
Directorate.
5. 23-05-2022 Called report from the Directorate for the second
time.
6. 04-07-2022 Called report from the Directorate for the third
time.
7. 09-08-2022 Called report from the Directorate for the fourth
time.
MC(W.A.) No.43 of 2023
Page |7
8. 10-10-2022 Called the report from the Directorate for the
fifth time.
9. 5-12-2022 As no report was received from the Directorate,
Administrative Dept. initiated the File for
preferring Appeal.
10. 12-12-2022 Administrative Dept. approved for filing Appeal.
11. 13-12-2022 File referred to Law Department.
12. 19-12-2022 Order issued by the Law Dept. to Govt. Advocate
to file Appeal.
13. 20-12-2022 Engagement order of Dy. Govt. Advocate for
filing Appeal.
14. 22-12-2022 Dy. Govt. Advocate sent letter to administrative
Dept for finishing document regarding Grounds
of Appeal.
15. 05-01-2023 Administrative Dept furnished Grounds of Appeal
and documents.
16. 17-01-2023 Additional Grounds for Appeal furnished by
Administrative Department.
17. 10-02-2023 Dy. Govt. Advocate sought instructions from
Administrative Dept.
18. 23-02-2023 After discussion and examination, Administrative
Department return back the duly signed Appeal
Petition.
MC(W.A.) No.43 of 2023
Page |8
[3.1] Mr. H. Debendra, learned Dy. AG has submitted that there are
some delays in file processing from table to table and from Department to
Department during the decision making process. After calculation, there was
delay of 334 days in filing the above referred Writ Appeal. He has further
submitted that some considerable time was consumed by the Government
Advocate for preparation of Memo of Appeal and Misc. Application due to
unavoidable workload owing to shortage of supporting Staff. Mr. H.
Debendra, learned Dy. AG has submitted that there are good grounds for
succeeding the Appeal and has prayed that the Misc. Application, for
condoning the delay of 334 days in filing the accompanying Writ Appeal, be
allowed. If the same is not allowed, the impugned order of granting a relief
not prayed in the writ petition will be perpetuated.
[4] Mr. D. Julius Riamei, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2
has submitted that the Applicants/Appellants have failed to show any good
and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal, as provided
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Rule 3 (2) of Chapter IV A of
the Manipur High Court Rules, 2019. He has further submitted that the
Applicants/Appellants have filed the present appeal before this Court only
after the filing of the Contempt Case No.29 of 2023 for compliance of the
order dated 25.02.2022 passed in WP (C) No.1057 of 2018. It is stated that
MC(W.A.) No.43 of 2023
Page |9
the same clearly manifests the filing of the present appeal as an
afterthought. It is submitted that there was clearly lack of diligence and
bonafide on the part of the Applicant/Appellants while preferring the present
appeal. There are unexplained days/months in the delay while preferring the
present appeal as shown in the present application under reply. The
explanation sought to be given for the cause of delay in preferring the
appeal is not satisfactory and lacks bonafide. It is submitted that there is no
sufficient cause in explaining the 334 days delay while preferring the appeal
before this Court. The learned Single Judge passed the order on 25.02.2022.
The table shown in para 7 under reply shows huge gaps of unexplained days
and there is no justification for calling the report for the Directorate for the
fifth time. Such an unexplained long days of delay does not warrant a
beneficial treatment from this Court. He prays for dismissal of the Misc.
Application for condonation of delay.
[5] Mr. H. Debendra, learned Dy. AG has submitted that with
reference to the period in between 28.4.2022 to 12.12.2022, it is explained
that the same was caused due to the illness of the concerned Legal Officer
dealing with the matter and at that relevant time, the Directorate was
heavily engaged for conversion of 6(six) Aided Colleges including Mayai
Lambi College and Thambal Marik College, the relevant File could not be
MC(W.A.) No.43 of 2023
P a g e | 10
processed for filing Appeal. Taking over of these Aided Colleges into full-
fledged Government Colleges involved assessment of land, building, other
property, verification of teaching and non-teaching staff, etc. Although the
Court's Order was passed on 25.2.2022, the Administrative Department
received the same only on 25.4.2022 vide legal notice dated 22.4.2022 of
the Petitioner's counsel and letter dated 28.4.2022 from the concerned
Government Advocate dealing the case. As such, State Government came to
know the Court's Order dated 25.2.2022 passed in WP(C) No.1057 of 2018
only on 25.4.2022. He further submitted that on 20.5.2022, File was put up
by the Legal Office to call a detailed report from the Director (UHE), Manipur
as the matter was related to appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff
of Thambal Marik College, Oinam. On 10.10.2022, Legal Officer (Hr. & Tech.
Edn), Government of Manipur also communicated the Addl. Director,
University & Higher Education, Manipur vide letter No.Writ/11/87/2018-
HE/Case dated 10.10.2022 by enclosing the letters dated 4.7.2022 and
9.8.2022 thereby requesting to furnish a detail comment along with relevant
documents. On 5.12.2022, although no comment was received from the
Director despite repeated reminders, Legal Officer put up the File for further
reference to the Law Department. On 12.6.2023, the Director (Univ. & Hr.
Edn.), Government of Manipur explained that the delay in submission of
MC(W.A.) No.43 of 2023
P a g e | 11
comment/relevant documents to the Government was caused as Shri L.
Itobombi Singh, Legal Officer of Directorate of University and Higher
Education was not able to work on it for a long time due to health issues
and also some time was consumed in gathering required information/
documents on the matter for furnishing to the Government.
[6] Heard Mr. H. Debendra, learned Dy. AG for the State, Mr. D.
Julius Riamei, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2, Mr. S. Samarjeet,
learned Sr.PCCG for respondent Nos.3 & 4, Mr. Sushilkumar, learned counsel
for respondent No.7, Mr. P. Tamphamani, learned counsel for respondent
No.8 and perused the materials available on record.
[7] Mr. D. Julius Riamei, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2
refers to a case of Shri Gainaichung Malangmei vs. The State of
Manipur & Ors., Judgment & Order dated 04.04.2022 passed by a
Division Bench of this Court in MC(WA) No.70 of 2022 and
Judgment & Order dated 13.03.2023 passed by another Division
Bench of this Court in MC(WA) No.48 of 2020 & MC(WA) No.75 of
2021. He further draws the attention of this Court to the fact that the legal
officer was processing the file for filing the present appeal, while the
MC(W.A.) No.43 of 2023
P a g e | 12
applicants stated that as the legal officer was unwell the file could not be
processed in time.
[8] Mr. H. Debendra, learned Dy. AG refers to a case of State of
Nagaland vs. Lipok AO & Others reported as (2005) 3 SCC 752
where Para 13 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
13. Experience shows that on account of an impersonal
machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt
by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the
inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-
making, file-pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on
its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to
approve. The State which represents collective cause of the
community, does not deserve a litigant-non-grata status. The
courts, therefore, have to be informed with the spirit and
philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of
the expression of sufficient cause. Merit is preferred to scuttle a
decision on merits in turning down the case on technicalities of
delay in presenting the appeal. Delay as accordingly condoned,
the order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High
Court for disposal on merits after affording opportunity of
hearing to the parties. In Prabha v. Ram Parkash Kalra11 this
Court had held that the court should not adopt an injustice-
oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of
delay. The appeal was allowed, the delay was condoned and the
MC(W.A.) No.43 of 2023
P a g e | 13
matter was remitted for expeditious disposal in accordance with
law.
[8.1] Mr. H. Debendra, learned Dy. GA also refers to the case of State
of Manipur & Others vs. Koting Lamkang reported as (2019) 10 SCC
408 where Para 6, 7 & 8 are reproduced hereinbelow:-
6. Insofar as the refusal by the High Court to condone the
delay of 312 days in the RFA preferred by the State of Manipur
and others, it is apparent that the appellants did prefer the
appeal at first instance on 15-06-2017 before the District Judge.
But since this was before the wrong forum and it was filed after
a delay of about eleven months and there is no explanation for
the time taken by the State between 18-7-2016 and 15-6-2017,
the delay in the RFA before the High Court was not condoned. In
fact the Court found that the State has not shown as to what
prevented them from preferring the appeal before the District
Judge (wrong forum), until 15-6-2017. The Court also said that
the latitude in applying the standards of "sufficient cause" test is
not attracted, in the instant case.
7. But while concluding as above, it was necessary for the
Court to also be conscious of the bureaucratic delay and the
slow pace in reaching a government decision and the routine
way of deciding whether the State should prefer an appeal
against a judgment adverse to it. Even while observing that the
law of limitation would harshly affect the party, the Court felt
MC(W.A.) No.43 of 2023
P a g e | 14
that the delay in the appeal filed by the State, should not be
condoned.
8. Regard should be had in similar such circumstances to
the impersonal nature of the Government's functioning where
individual officers may fail to act responsibly. This in turn, would
result in injustice to the institutional interest of the State. If the
appeal by the State are lost for individual default, those who are
at fault, will not usually be individually affected.
[8.2] Mr. H. Debendra, learned Dy. AG further relies on the judgment
of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur
Nafar Academy & Others reported as (2013) 12 SCC 649. Para 21 is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can
broadly be culled out are:
21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-
oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an
application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not
supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove
injustice.
21.2. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be
understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard
being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and
MC(W.A.) No.43 of 2023
P a g e | 15
are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-
situation.
21.3 (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal
the technical considerations should not be given undue and
uncalled for emphasis.
21.4 (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate
causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the
counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
21.5 (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking
condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
21.6 (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict
proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief
because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the
ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.
21.7 (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to
encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be
allowed a totally unfettered free play.
21.8 (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay
and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former
doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not
be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach
whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
MC(W.A.) No.43 of 2023
P a g e | 16
21.9 (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party
relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be
taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is
that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of
justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be
given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.
21.10 (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the
grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should
be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face
such a litigation.
21.11 (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away
with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse
to the technicalities of law of limitation.
21.12 (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully
scrutinised and the approach should be based on the paradigm
of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and
not on individual perception.
21.13 (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity
representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable
latitude.
[8.3] Mr. H. Debendra, learned Dy. AG clarifies that there are two
legal officers- one in Directorate and another in the Secretariat. It is the
legal officer posted in the Directorate who was unwell at the relevant time
MC(W.A.) No.43 of 2023
P a g e | 17
and due to his illness, the file could not be processes for a long period of
about 6 months. The legal officer mentioned by Mr. Julius is the one posted
in the Secretariat. It is stated that there is no wrong statement has been
made by the applicants while explaining the details of time taken in
preferring the appeal. He submits that the present application requires
sympathetic consideration from this Court in order to prevent
implementation of the direction of the learned Single Judge which is prima
facie cannot be executed in the present form. It is pointed out that the relief
granted is not prayed for the writ petitioners.
[9] Learned counsel for the other respondents submit that this Court
may pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
[10] We have considered the submissions of the parties, the materials
on record and relevant case law in this regard. In the table furnished by the
applicants, it is seen that the major delay of about 6 months' time was taken
while waiting for report from the Directorate. This has been explained by
learned Dy AG as the concerned legal officer of the Directorate was unwell
at the relevant time. For the remaining period, the time taken for movement
of the file from one desk to another and from one office to another does not
MC(W.A.) No.43 of 2023
P a g e | 18
seem to be fatal. The case laws referred to above lay down the principle
that while considering an application for condonation of delay, a liberal,
pragmatic, justice oriented and non-pedantic approach has to be adopted
and mere technicalities should not amount to in perpetuating injustice.
Substantial justice should prevail over hyper technicalities. Whether a relief
not prayed for has been granted or not is an important question which
requires consideration on merit. We are of the view that the delay of 334
days in filing the accompanying appeal be condoned subject to the payment
of a cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only in favour of the High
Court Bar Association, Manipur. On submission of proof of payment of such
cost, the Registry is directed to number the accompanying appeal. With
these observations and directions, the application is allowed and disposed
of.
JUDGE JUDGE
FR/NFR
- Larson
MC(W.A.) No.43 of 2023
