Manipur High Court
State Of Manipur & 7 Ors vs Pheiroijam Heramani & 6 Ors on 29 February, 2024
Digitally signed
KHOIROM by KHOIROM 1
BIPINCHAN BIPINCHANDRA
SINGH
DRA SINGH Date: 2024.02.29
06:43:49 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.A. No. 9 of 2024
With
MC(WA) No. 20 of 2024
With
W.A. No. 10 of 2024
With
MC(WA) No. 21 of 2024
With
W.A. No. 11 of 2024
With
MC(WA) No. 22 of 2024
State of Manipur & 7 Ors.
... Appellants
- Versus -
Pheiroijam Heramani & 6 Ors.
... Respondents
B E FO R E
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU
29.02.2024
(CJ)
The present writ appeals have been instituted on behalf of the State
of Manipur and other official parties assailing the judgment and order dated
18.04.2023 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in connected writ petitions being W.P.(C)
No. 205 of 2023, W.P.(C) No. 239 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No. 266 of 2023.
At the outset, it would be relevant to observe that the above said
connected writ petitions, inter-alia, prayed for a direction, to allow original writ
petitioners, who were elected as representatives at the 5th General Panchayat
election for Gram Panchayats as well as the Zilla Parishads, to continue in office
beyond the period of 5 (five) years; as stipulated by law; and till the time the State
Election Commission notified the election for the 6th General Panchayat election for
Gram Panchayats and to the Zilla Parishads.
At this juncture, it is also pertinent to observe that the original writ
petitioners have since instituted a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 140 of 2024
(Pherioijam Heramani Singh & 11 Ors. Vs. State of Manipur & 9 Ors.), inter-alia,
seeking quashing of Section 109 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
("hereinafter referred to as the Act"), as being ultra vires the Constitution.
In view of the foregoing, it is axiomatic that the issues that arise for
consideration; both in the writ appeal instituted on behalf of the State of Manipur
and the writ petition instituted on behalf of the original writ petitioners; overlap and
are interconnected.
Issue notice.
Md. Murtaza Ahmed, learned counsel led by Mr. N. Jotendro, learned
senior advocate accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents; prays for and is
granted 4 (four) weeks' time to file counter affidavit, after providing an advance
copy thereof to the learned counsel for the appellants, who may file affidavit in
rejoinder thereto, if any, within 2 (two) weeks thereafter.
The State of Manipur seeks an interim direction, staying the operation
of the impugned judgment and order dated 18.04.2023. It is observed that at this
stage, the writ appellant is particularly aggrieved by the direction issued by the Ld.
Single Judge in Paragraphs No. 32 and 37 of the common impugned judgment and
order dated 18.04.2023, whereby they were directed to allow the hitherto elected
representatives of the Gram Panchayats and Zilla Parishads, to continue to function
in their respective posts, till the State Election Commission issues the election
notification for the 6th General Panchayat election of Gram Panchayats as well as
the Zilla Parishads.
It is undisputed before us that the original writ petitioners were duly
elected as members of the Gram Panchayats and Zilla Parishads, as the case may
be, in the elections conducted in the year 2017 and assumed their respective office
commencing from 26.10.2017 to 29.10.2017, for the stipulated period of 5 (five)
years.
It is further an admitted position that the process to hold election for
the 6th General Panchayat election for Gram Panchayats as well as election to the
Zilla Parishads, in terms of the provision of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) was initiated by the State Election Commission
on 04.04.2023 and the final electoral roll was notified on 27.04.2023 which was
published in local daily (The Sangai Express) on 28.04.2023. We, however, hasten
to add that the election process has been put on hold by the Governor of Manipur
vide order dated 10.05.2023 'due to present unrest in the State'.
Having heard Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate General, Manipur
appearing on behalf of the State of Manipur and other official appellants as well as
Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the then elected
representatives (original writ petitioners) at length; in view of the clear and
unequivocal mandate of Article 243E of the Constitution of India read in conjunction
with the provision of Section 109 of the Manipur Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, we are
prima facie of the view that it would be just and necessary to stay the operation of
the offending direction issued by the Ld. Single Judge in the common impugned
judgment and order dated 18.04.2023, inasmuch as, it commands the official
respondents to permit the elected representatives of the Gram Panchayat and Zilla
Parishads to function in their respective posts, beyond the period expressly
mandated by law; till the next date of hearing.
We, also prima facie, disagree with the reliance placed by Mr. N.
Jotendro, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the elected
representatives, on the amended Section 22 of the Act; in view of the evident sine
qua non provided therein that, the provision of the same are attracted only in the
event of the provided for situation arising 'immediately after the establishment of
the said Gram Panchayat'.
However, in order to obviate a situation, where the Gram Panchayat
and Zilla Parishads cannot function in accordance with law; at the request of the
learned Advocate General; we grant liberty to the State of Manipur to appoint an
Administrative Committee for each Gram Panchayats and Zilla Parishads in
accordance with law and the provision of the Act, afresh. [Reference: (1975) 3
SCC 765 (Madeva Upendra Sinai & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) Para No.
39 & 40].
List on 15.04.2024.
Copy of this order be furnished to both learned counsel for the parties.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Bipin
