Manipur High Court
Sangita Haobam vs State Of Manipur And 2 Others on 2 July, 2024
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL
SHARMA
1
SHARMA Date: 2024.07.04 11:44:47 +05'30'
Item No. 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
PIL No. 20 of 2023
Sangita Haobam
Petitioner
Vs.
State of Manipur and 2 Others
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
ORDER
02.07.2024
Siddharth Mridul, C.J.:
None appears on behalf of the petitioner. There was no appearance
on behalf of the petitioner on the 26th June, 2024, the previous date of hearing as
well, when adverse orders were deferred in the interest of justice.
Mr. M. Devananda, the learned Additional Advocate General,
appearing on behalf of the State of Manipur would contend that the present being
a service matter, no public interest litigation is maintainable in view of the dictum
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratap Singh Bist Vs. The Director,
Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as follows :
"4. In this view of the matter and having regard to the fact that the
respondent nos.5 to 17 have already served for almost 15 years, we
are not inclined to entertain these special leave petitions against their
selection or appointment. However, the second reason assigned by the
High Court, namely, that "PIL is not at all maintainable in service
matters" in view of the decision of this Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu
and Others vs. Jintendra Kumar Mishra and Others, (1998) 7 SCC
273, is a debatable issue and the said question of law is kept open, to
be gone into an appropriate case."
And also in the case of Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of U.P. through
Principal Secretary Basic Education and 5 Others decided on 24.08.2020 in
PIL No. 751 of 2020 by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court which reads as follows :
"15. In N.Veerasamy vs. Union of India, reported in (2005) 2 MLJ
564, while considering a public interest litigation filed by a treasurer
of a political party, praying to take action again Mrs.Lakshmi
Pranesh, IAS, the fifth respondent therein, under the All India
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, for allegedly making
allegations against a leader of a political party, following the above
judgments of the Honourable Apex Court, a Hon'ble Division Bench
of this Court held as follows:-
"It is settled law that no writ in the form of public interest litigation
will lie under Article 226 of the Constitution in service matters. The
petitioner has no locus standi to file the public interest litigation. The
extraordinary powers of the High Court under Art.226 of the
Constitution in matters of this kind is required to be used sparingly
and only in extraordinary cases." "The service matters are essentially
between the employer and the employee and it would be for the State
to take action under the Service Rules and there is no question of any
public interest involved in such matters."
"The petition is not only not maintainable either in law of facts but
also would amount to abuse of the process of Court."
Be that as it may, since none appears on behalf of the petitioner, the
present PIL is dismissed in default for non-prosecution.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil
