Manipur High Court
Shri Thokchom Ingoba Singh vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The on 18 March, 2024
Author: A.Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A.Guneshwar Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No.18 of 2024
With
MC(WP(C) No. 10 of 2024
Shri Thokchom Ingoba Singh,
aged about 59 years old, s/o late
Thokchom Chaigoi Singh, a resident
of Kongba Makha Nandeibam
Laikai, PO Singjamei & PS
Irilbung, Imphal East District,
Manipur 795008 ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the
Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, Manipur
Secretariat, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West,
Manipur 795001.
2. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner/
Special Secretary/ Secretary (DP), Government of
Manipur, Secretariat Block, Babupara, PO & PS
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur 795001.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary (RD & PR).
Government of Manipur, Secretariat Block,
PO & PS Imphal, Manipur 795001.
4. Shri Hirom Shantakumar Singh, aged about
58 years old, s/o H.Gourahari Singh, a resident
of Heingang Mayai Leikai, PO & PS Heingang,
Imphal East District, Manipur 795002.
... Respondents
WP(C) NO. 18 OF 2024 1
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Petitioner :: Mr.H.S. Paonam, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.S. Gunabanta, Advocate
For the respondents :: Mr.M. Rarry, Special State Counsel
Mr.M. Hemchandra, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.M. Rendy, Advocate
Dates of Hearing :: 19.01.2024, 29.01.2024 & 5.2.2024
Date of Order :: 18.03.2024
ORDER (CAV)
[1] Heard Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted
by Mr. Gunabanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Rarry,
learned Special State Counsel for State respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3
and Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M.
Rendy, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
[2] By the present writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged the impugned order dated 6.1.2024 issued by the Joint
Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur, appointing Shri Hirom
Shantakumar Singh, Superintending Engineer presently holding the
post of Additional Chief Engineer (i/c) RED/MSRRDA to hold the
charge of Chief Engineer, RED/MSRRDA on in-charge basis, in
addition to his normal duties until further order. It is stated that the
same is issued in violation of Office Memoranda dated 3.10.2020,
9.3.2021 and 4.9.2023 issued by the Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms, Government of Manipur with regard to
appointments made on in-charge basis. The petitioner has filed an
application being MC(WP(C)) No. 10 of 2024 for stay of the
impugned order 6.1.2024 during the pendency of the writ petition.
[3] It is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed
as Section Officer Grade-I in the Department of Rural Development
& Panchayati Raj, vide order dated 26.10.1999 and was allowed to
hold the charge of Assistant Engineer in the Manipur State Rural
Roads Development Agency (MSRRDA) vide order dated 3.8.2006
and since then the petitioner was working in MSRRDA for effective
implementation of PMGSY scheme in the State of Manipur. Vide
order dated 5.1.2013, the petitioner was appointed as Executive
Engineer in the MSRRDA on deputation. The private respondent
No.4 were initially appointed in the Public Works Department (PWD)
Manipur in the year 1991 and was deputed as Assistant Engineer in
the MSRRDA in the year 2012.
[4] On the recommendation of the Special DPC, the
petitioner and private respondent No.4 and 11 (eleven) persons (in
all 13 persons) were appointed as Executive Engineers, in the Rural
Engineering Department (RED) of the RD & PR vide order dated
24.12.2016 issued by the Secretary, RD & PR,. The name of the
petitioner was placed at Sl.No.6 and respondent No.4 at Sl.No.12.
[5] It is stated that as per recommendation of the Special
DPC, the petitioner is senior to the private respondent No.4. Even
on the basis of date of birth also, the petitioner is senior to private
respondent No.4 as the petitioner's date of birth is 1.3.1965 and that
of the respondent No.4 is 31.12.1966.
[6] Further, on the recommendation of the Special DPC
and vide order dated 7.1.2022 issued by the Additional Chief
Secretary (RD & PR), three persons including the petitioner and
private respondent, were appointed as Superintending Engineers in
the RED/MSRRDA with immediate effect. The name of the petitioner
is at Sl.No.2 and that of the private respondent, at Sl.No.3 of the
appointment order.
[7] Vide order dated 3.1.2022 issued by the Under
Secretary, RD & PR, Government of Manipur, the petitioner was
posted as Additional Chief Engineer, RED/MSRRDA (in-charge),
Tamenglong, Churachandpur, Chandel, Imphal East, Thoubal and
Jiribam, while vide order dated 8.1.2022, respondent No.4 was
given charge of OSD, equivalent to Additional Chief Engineer as a
stop gap arrangement.
[8] Vide letter dated 29.12.2023, the Chief Engineer,
RED/MSRRDA furnished integrity certificate based on the Vigilance
clearance for the purpose of filling of vacant posts of Chief Engineer/
Empowered Officer in RED/MSRRDA including the name of petitioner
and respondent No.4 and another person.
[9] It is stated that in the case of respondent No.4,
Vigilance clearance is under process where in respect of others it is
completed. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 6.1.2024,
respondent No.4 was given charge of Chief Engineer, RED/MSRRDA
on in-charge basis in addition to his normal duties.
[10] When the matter was taken up on 12.1.2024, at the
request of Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
the respondents were directed to produce the file bearing
No.7/15/2012-RD (MC) Pt.I, Government of Manipur Secretariat-RD
& PR (MC) and File No.PF-9/11/2023-DP DP and related files,
relating to the appointment of in-charge Chief Engineer in
RED/MSRRDA.
[11] On 16.1.2024, Mr.M.Hemchandra, learned senior
counsel for respondent No.4 appeared on Caveat and on 17.1.2024
private respondent filed preliminary objection to the writ petition.
On 18.1.2024 and 19.1.2024, Mr.Rarry, learned Special State
Counsel submitted the relevant File in Sealed Cover and the same
was kept in the custody of the Court. In the preliminary objection,
it is stated that the respondent No.4 was appointed on 8.8.1991 as
Section Officer Grade-I in the Public Works Department,
Government of Manipur.
[12] Vide order 26.10.1999, 19 (nineteen) persons
including the petitioner herein, were appointed as Section Officer,
Grade-I in the RD & PR. In pursuance of the Cabinet Decision and
vide order dated 16.9.2016, Governor of Manipur was pleased to
absorb 55 employees utilised in the RD & PR Department on
deputation against the posts mentioned in the said order. In the said
order, respondent No.4 appeared at Sl.No.18 and he was absorbed
as Assistant Engineer (Civil) and petitioner's name appeared at
Sl.No.21 and was also absorbed as Assistant Engineer (Civil). It may
be mentioned that all the 55 different posts were created vide
different orders, all dated 16.9.2016. In para 3 of the absorption
order dated 16.9.2016, it is mentioned that Tentative Seniority List
of the officials would be notified at a later stage. On 23.12.2016 by
inserting Regulation 71-A in the Manipur Public Service Commission,
(Exemption from Consultation) Regulation, 1972, exemption from
consulting MPSC was made for absorption of 33 officials of the newly
established/created Rural Engineering Department as one time
measure and name of the private respondent was included at
Sl.No.18 and that of the petitioner, at Sl.No.21 of the Regulation 71-
A. Thereafter vide order dated 24.12.2016 issued by the Secretary,
RD & PR, Government of Manipur, 13 Assistant Engineers of RED
were promoted to the grade of Executive Engineer with immediate
effect. The name of the petitioner appear at Sl.No.6 and that of
private respondent No.4 at Sl.No.12.
[13] Vide order dated 21.8.2023 passed in WP(C) No.513
of 2023, this Court directed the State respondents to consider the
representation submitted by private respondent No.4 herein. In
pursuance of the direction of this Court, the Addl. Chief Secretary,
RD & PR, Government of Manipur passed order dated 25.10.2023
stating that the order of absorption in the post of Assistant Engineer
dated 16.09.2016, promotion order dated 24.12.2016 and
promotion order dated 7.1.2022 to the post of Superintending
Engineers, are not in order of merit and final seniority list will be
notified later on. Accordingly, representation of the private
respondent was disposed of. It is stated that the petitioner has not
challenged this order dated 25.10.2023 of RD&PR Department.
[14] The Joint Secretary, DP, Government of Manipur
issued Addendum dated 15.1.2024 inserting the words "and
Empowered Officer" after the words "Chief Engineer, RED/MSSRDA"
in the 4th line of the impugned order dated 6.1.2024.
[15] Vide letter dated 22.12.2023 to the Additional Chief
Secretary (RD & PR), Government of Manipur, the outgoing Chief
Engineer, RED/MSRRDA also recommended the name of private
respondent No.4 to be appointed as Chief Engineer on in-charge
basis as stop gap arrangement.
[16] Mr. H. S. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is at present the senior most
in the RD & PR. It is stated that the petitioner was utilised in the
Directorate of RD & PR, Government of Manipur vide order dated
16.10.1999 as Section Officer Grade-I and his service was further
utilized in the MSRRDA as Assistant Engineer in addition to his
normal duties. It is also stated that in the order dated 24.12.2016,
wherein 13 Assistant Engineers in the RD & PR, were promoted as
Executive Engineers on regular basis and name of the petitioner
appears at Sl.No.6 and that of private respondent No.4 is at
Sl.No.12. In the promotion order dated 7.1.2022 to the post of
Superintending Engineers in RED/MSRRDA, the name of the
petitioner is at Sl.No.2 and that of private respondent No.4 is at
Sl.No.3. Likewise, petitioner was given in-charge of Additional Chief
Engineer for RED/MSRRDA vide order 3.1.2022 while private
respondent No.4 was given OSD/Equivalent to Additional Chief
Engineer on 8.1.2022.
[17] It is submitted that in absence of final seniority list of
officers in the feeder cadre, the serial in the promotion order, on the
recommendation of a duly constituted DPC, would be considered as
seniority list for the promotees. In this aspect, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner relies on the Office Memorandum dated
13.11.1987 issued by the Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms, Government of Manipur adopting Office
Memorandum dated 7.2.1986 issued by the Department of Public
Grievance and Pension, Government of India with regard to the
General Principles for determining the seniority of various categories
of persons employed in Central Services.
[18] Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies upon a
judgment/order dated 15.12.2023 passed by this Court in
WP(C) Nos. 634 of 2023 and 613 of 2023 wherein it was held
that in terms of OMs dated 03.10.2020 and 09.03.2021, the
seniormost in the feeder cadre has to be considered for appointment
on in charge basis when none is available for direct recruitment or
promotion in the feeder cadre. In absence of a final seniority list in
the feeder cadre, it has been held that the tentative seniority list can
be considered for the purpose of the appointment on in charge
basis. In that case, the petitioner was seniormost in the cadre of
Deputy Director and his name was at serial number 1 in the
promotion order of Joint Director on regular basis on the
recommendation of duly constituted DPC. None challenged the
appointment orders to Deputy Director and Joint Director. However,
the seniority list of Deputy Director was under challenged and there
was no stay order. The appointment of junior officer was set aside
by this Court.
[19] Mr. H. S. Paonam, learned senior counsel cites the
judgment of Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel: (1985) 3 SCC
398 @ Para 24 to the point that the executive instructions stand
on a lower footing than a statutory rule. Reference is made to the
decision of Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v.
Union of India: (1988) 2 SCC 109 where it was held that in
absence of any rule, the executive instructions will be treated as
binding. Relying on the decision of Union of India v. Raj Grow
Implex LLP: (2021) 18 SCC 601, it is submitted that issuing of
Addendum dated 15.01.2024 inserting word 'Empowered Officer' in
the impugned order dated 06.01.2024 during the pendency of the
writ petition without leave of this Court is not tenable. It is also
submitted that pendency of a criminal complaint before Vigilance or
Lok Ayukta cannot be considered as pendency of a criminal case
against the petitioner.
[20] It is also stated that even if assuming that there is no
final seniority list, the petitioner being senior in age, i.e. his date of
birth 1.3.1965 than that of respondent No.4, i.e. 31.12.1966, he
would be senior to the respondent No.4. Mr.Paonam, learned senior
counsel also highlighted that the name of the petitioner was
recommended by the Administrative Committee for appointment as
in-charge Chief Engineer, RED. However, the Deptt of Personnel has
ignored the opinion of the Administrative Department and the same
cannot be done in violation of Rules of Business of the Government
of Manipur. It is stated that the Minister (MAHUD/RD&PR) also
expressed his displeasure for appointing respondent No.4 without
his approval.
[21] Learned senior counsel for the petitioner draws
attention of this Court to the Office Memorandum dated 3.10.2020
issued by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms,
Government of Manipur, laying guidelines for making in-charge
appointment where eligible persons are not available for promotion.
It is stated in para 4 that
"4. Thus, with a view to bring uniformly, clarity and
enforceable norms in making such in-charge
appointment, the following norms are nearby issued
for compliance by all concerned:
i. Appointment on in-charged basis shall
be made against a post only when there
is no official eligible as per RR to fulfil the
said post either by direct recruitment or
promotion through duly constituted
DPC.
ii. In absence of any official eligible as per
RR to fill up a particular post, the senior
most person amongst cadre/officials
belonging to the feeder post of the said
particular post shall be appointed to hold
the said post on in-charged basis, at no
extra remuneration and in addition to
the substantial post held by the
appointee in lower post. Needless to say,
the appointee shall draw pay against the
lower post substantially held by him.
iii. Where no arrangement can be made as
in para (ii) above, an in-charge
appointment shall be made to a vacant
post from a person holding a similar post
(at same rank and/or designation), at no
extra remuneration.
iv. An official appointed on in-charge basis
against any post shall have the same
financial power as a person appointed on
substantial basis against the said post
would enjoy.
5. These instructions shall be applicable while making
appointments on in-charge basis to all posts under the
State Government existing in all Government
departments, agencies, societies, bodies, offices,
companies, PSUs, autonomous bodies, etc."
[22] Further the Department of Personnel also issued
another Memorandum dated 9.3.2021 inserting para (v) to the OM
dated 3.10.2020, which is reproduced hereunder:
"GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE
REFORMS
(PERSONNEL DIVISION)
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Imphal, the 9th March, 2021
No.23/20/2019 Misc (PHED)/DP: In continuation of
this Department's office Memorandum
rd
No.23/20/2019-Misc (PHED) dated 3 October, 2020
regarding appointment on in-charge basis to various
posts and conditions for making such appointment etc.
The following norms are hereby issued for
compliance by all concerned in addition to para 4
(i)(ii)(iii)(iv) of Department of Personnel Office
Memorandum of even number dated 3rd October,
2020:
(v) "Integrity certificate based on Vigilance
Clearance, non-pendency of Departmental Enquiry,
non-pendency of FIR cases which has been taken
cognizance by Magistrate etc is mandatory or in-
charge appointments, especially the Head of
Departments".
[23] Another OM dated 4.9.2023 was inserted in case of
HOD, which is also reproduced hereunder.
"GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE
REFORMS
(PERSONNEL DIVISION)
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Imphal, the 4th Sept, 2023
No.23/20/2019-Misc (PHED)/DP: In continuation of
this Department's O.M of even no. dated 03.10.2020
and 9.3.2021 regarding appointments on n-charge
basis to various posts and conditions for making such
appointments etc, the following shall be added at Para
4(ii) after the existing provision:
However, in the case of HoDs, if more than one
person is holding the senior most feeder post, then the
selection of the person to hold the post shall be done
from amongst these officers taking into regard proven
leadership qualities and administrative efficiency,
apart from the conditions at sub-para (v)."
[24] Referring to the above three OMs, learned senior
counsel summits that when none is available, the seniormost in the
feeder cadre has to be considered for making in-charge in the higher
post and in case of HOD, Vigilance clearance, non-pendency of
departmental enquiry and non-pendency of FIR are to be examined.
[25] On conjoint reading of the three OMs it is submitted
that if eligible persons as per Rule are not available for promotion,
the senior most amongst the feeder cadre shall be appointed to hold
the post on in-charge basis, provided such persons are not facing
any Departmental Enquiry or criminal case against him. In case of
multiple candidates having same seniority, the most competent
persons with proven leadership quality and administrative exigency
have to be considered.
[26] It is submitted that in the present case, the
respondent No.4 does not satisfy any of the criteria as laid down in
the three Office Memoranda, as the respondent No.4 is neither
senior most nor a person with proven leadership quality and his
name has not been cleared by the Vigilance and as such, the
impugned order dated 6.1.2024 conferring in-charge Chief Engineer,
RED/MSRRDA to respondent No.4 is violation of the above OMs.
Even the concerned Minister expressed his displeasure in the
appointment of respondent No.4.
[27] Mr. H. S. Paonam, learned senior counsel submits that
the impugned order issued in violation of the OMs which are binding
to the State Government in absence of any statutory rules, ought to
be set aside. The impugned order also has not taken into
consideration the views of the Administrative Department.
[28] Per contra, Mr. M. Rarry, learned Special State Counsel
draws the attention of this Court to order dated 16.09.2016 where
55 employees who were working in the RD&PR on deputation from
various departments were absorbed in the newly
established/created Rural Engineering Department. All the posts
were created on 16.09.2016 and the name of the respondent No.4
was shown at serial No. 18 as AE(Civil) while that of the petitioner
was shown at serial No. 21 as AE(Civil). The outgoing Chief Engineer
was shown at serial No. 5 as EE(Civil). It was mentioned in the
absorption order dated 16.09.2016 that Tentative Seniority List
would be notified later on. It is submitted that the petitioner has
concealed this vital order in his writ petition. It is pointed out that
no tentative or final seniority list has been issued in the newly
created RED till date and in absence of any seniority list, the serial
mentioned in absorption order dated 16.09.2016 can be considered
for making appointment on in charge basis in terms of the OMs cited
by the petitioner. Mr. M. Rarry has pointed out that this is
permissible in terms of order dated 15.12.2023 passed by this Court
in WP(C) No. 634 of 2023 (as relied by the petitioner herein above).
[29] Mr. M. Rarry has pointed out that criminal complaints
are pending against the petitioner and as such he was overlooked
in terms of OM dated 09.03.2021. It is stated that order dated
31.08.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 527 of 2023, the
appointment of a junior was upheld due to pendency of criminal
case against the senior. It is pointed out that Mr. H.S. Paonam,
learned senior counsel successfully argued in favour of the junior
officer.
[30] Referring to the Rules of Business, Mr. M. Rarry,
learned counsel for the State has submitted that Chief Minister (also
in charge of DP) is the competent authority for the appointment of
the head of department. Reference is made to the order dated
25.10.2023 issued by RD&PR that the final seniority list of AE, EE
and SE in RED is not settled and the petitioner has not challenged
this order. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot be treated as a senior
in terms of the promotion orders to AE, EE and SE. It is pointed out
that petitioner was appointed as SO in the year 1999 while
respondent No.4 was appointed in the year 1991. In absence of any
tentative or final seniority list in the cadres of AE, EE and SE, the
appointment dates for SO can be considered for the purpose of in
charge appointments in terms of the above three OMs.
[31] It is also submitted that for obtaining an interim order
of stay of the impugned order, the relevant materials should be
shown by the petitioner from his petition. The three cardinal
principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss, should be apparent on plain reading of the petition.
Mr. Rarry has vehemently submitted that the petitioner has
miserably failed to do so and on the very first day of hearing for
motion, learned senior counsel for the petitioner prayed for calling
the relevant government file to establish the prima facie case. It is
also stated that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the
respondents as the respondent No.4 is running the RED and no
irreparable loss will occur to the petitioner. If stay is granted, the
department and the general public will suffer. It is also stated that
the petitioner has not produced all the documents and has
concealed those which are averse to him. It is submitted that the
writ petition be dismissed at this stage being devoid of merit and for
concealment of material facts and documents.
[32] Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel for the
respondent No.4 has raised two preliminary objections of material
facts and incomplete impugned order (ie, addendum dated
15.01.2024 to impugned order dated 06.01.2024 issued after filing
of writ petition and not challenged by the petitioner). It is stated
that the petitioner has concealed absorption order dated 16.09.2016
of 55 employees of RED including the petitioner and respondent
No.4. In the absorption order the name of the respondent No.4 was
placed at serial number 18 while that of the petitioner at 21.
Similarly, in Notification dated 23.12.2016 for adding Regulation 71A
for exemption from consulting MPSC, the name of respondent No.4
appeared at serial number 18 while that of the petitioner at 21. In
the order dated 25.10.2023, it has been clarified that all the
absorption and promotion orders in RED are not in order of merit
and final seniority list will be notified later on. This order is not
challenged by the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner has
concealed all these vital documents and he has wrongly claimed as
senior on the basis of promotion orders to the post of EE and SE. It
is stated that as per the recommendation of outgoing Chief
Engineer, the private respondent is senior to the petitioner by eight
years as considered from the date of initial appointment in the cadre
of SO. It is submitted that there is no material to show that the
petitioner is senior to the respondent No.4 and as such he cannot
invoke the OMs dated 03.12.2020, 09.03.2021 and 04.09.2023 to
claim his right for appointment as in charge Chief Engineer of RED.
Reference is made to the decisions cited as (2005) 10 SCC 274,
(2008) 12 SCC 481, (2013) 2 SCC 398, 2009 (2) GLT 252,
197 (1) GLT 669, (1991) 2 SCC 733 and AIR 2022 SC 1361.
It is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed being devoid of any
merit and for concealing the material facts.
[33] This Court considered the materials on record
including original file. At first, this Court proposes to dispose of this
case at motion stage on the basis of available records without calling
for reply from the respondents, as the parties have argued
extensively for three days. However, in views of the serious disputed
facts with regard to the question of seniority, the only the limited
question of granting interim order is taken up. On perusal of original
file, it is seen that both the names of the petitioner and respondent
No.4 were considered by the DP on the basis of materials submitted
by the Administrative Department and finally, the respondent No.4
was appointed as CE/RED on in charge basis.
[34] In order dated 15.12.2023 in WP(C) No. 634 of 2023
and 613 of 2023, this Court held that in terms of OMs dated
03.10.2020 and 09.03.2021, the seniormost in the feeder cadre
should be considered for appointment on in-charge basis, if eligible
candidates are not available as per rules. It was further held that
tentative seniority list can be considered for appointment on in-
charge basis. Accordingly, this Court set aside the appointment of
private respondent and directed to appoint the petitioner who was
seniormost in the feeder cadre. However, vide order dated
09.02.2024 in WA No. 112 of 2023, a Division Bench of this Court
directed the State respondent to decide the matter afresh in terms
of the OMs dated 03.10.2020 and 09.03.2021. The findings of the
Single Judge with regard to the appointment on in-charge basis as
per the OMs have not been disturbed by the Division Bench.
[35] In the present case, the question of seniority in Rural
Engineering Department is not finalised till date. The same is evident
from the orders dated 16.09.2016 and 25.10.2023 issued by RD&PR
Department, Govt. of Manipur. On the basis of available materials,
this Court is not able to arrive at a tentative opinion with regard to
inter se seniority between the petitioner qua the respondent No.4
for applicability of the OMs dated 03.10.2020, 09.03.2021 and
04.09.2023. There are rival documents in this regard and the same
cannot be decided at this stage without going through in details the
replies of the party.
[36] Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to pass any
interim order against the impugned order dated 06.01.2024
appointing the respondent No.4 as in charge Chief Engineer,
RED/MSRRDA at this stage. The matter needs detailed consideration
upon filing of replies from parties.
[37] List this case on 24.04.2024 for further consideration.
The respondents may file counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits
by petitioner, if necessary, on or before next date with advance
copies to other side.
[38] Return original files to learned counsel for State
respondents.
JUDGE
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2024.03.18
13:10:57 +05'30'
