Manipur High Court
Y. Mangi Singh vs Govind Mohan; & Ors on 11 June, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
KABORAMBA Digitally
KABORAMBAM
signed by
M SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH
Date: 2025.06.15
SINGH 20:04:17 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CONT. CAS (C) No. 38 of 2025
[Ref: PIL No. 24 of 2023]
Y. Mangi Singh
Petitioner
Vs.
Govind Mohan; & Ors.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
(ORDER)
(K. SOMASHEKAR, C.J.)
11.06.2025
Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner, Mr. M. Rendy
is present before the Court physically and learned senior counsel for
respondent No. 2, Mr. M. Devananda, is also present before the Court
physically.
Heard the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner and
so also learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2/accused.
Perused the materials on record.
This contempt proceeding has been initiated by the
complainant/petitioner keeping in view the provision of Section 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of
India and Chapter XV, Appendix-4 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of
Manipur) Rules, 2019 for initiating contempt against the
Page | 1
respondents/contemnors for their acts of willful and deliberate disobedience
of the interim order dated 18.05.2023 and order dated 10.08.2023 passed
in PIL No. 24 of 2023 (Annexure P/1).
Whereas the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner
submits that this contempt proceeding has been initiated keeping in view
the aforesaid provision of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and more so,
this contempt proceeding is to be termed as second round contempt
proceeding and even after closure of the first contempt proceeding dated
18.02.2025 relating to CONT. CAS (C) No. 86 of 2023 in respect of the
proceeding in PIL No. 24 of 2023 (Annexure -P/4).
Whereas the learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2 in
this matter submits that this contempt proceeding has been initiated by the
complainant/petitioner keeping in view the interim order dated 18.05.2023
and 10.08.2023 in respect to the aforesaid PIL No. 24 of 2023 (Annexure-
P/1), but the learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2 submits forcefully
that this contempt proceeding has been initiated keeping in view the
information disclosed in the local newspapers, however, the learned senior
counsel for the complainant submits that the contempt proceeding has been
initiated and the same is required to be taken on record and also take action
against the respondents/contemnors/accused.
Whereas the learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2
submits that this contempt proceeding has been initiated by the
complainant/petitioner after lapse of the reckoning the period of one year.
Page | 2
Therefore, keeping in view the submission made by learned senior counsel
for respondent No. 2, it is appropriate to refer the provision of Section 20 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, wherein the said provision of law, it is
indicating that: Limitation for actions for contempt - No court shall initiate
any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after
the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is
alleged to have been committed.
Whereas this contempt proceeding has been initiated by the
complainant based upon the newspaper report and also forcefully submitting
to take action against the respondent/accused/contemnors, however,
keeping in view the issues in between the complainant and the respondents
are concerned, it is deemed appropriate to refer the provision of Section 2
of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, wherein the said provision is termed as
Definition, and Section 2 (b) indicates that "civil contempt" means willful
disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process
of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. But keeping
in view the aforesaid provision of Section 2(b) and inclusive of this contempt
proceeding even in the second round proceeding as being initiated which is
based on newspaper information and wherein it is requesting to take action
against the respondents/accused/contemnors.
Therefore, it does not arise for constitutively offences as
against the respondents/contemnors to take action against them and also
able to take cognizance keeping in view the provision of law. Cognizance is
nothing but it is a judicial action as in terms of judicial notice and wherein
Page | 3
there is no constitutively ingredients of the offences under Section 2(b) of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Therefore, it is said that this contempt
proceeding does not survive for consideration,
Consequently, keeping in view the provision of Section 20 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which provision provides that the
contempt proceeding has to be initiated within a period of one year from the
date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed, but this
contempt proceeding has been initiated after lapse of the reckoning period
of one year and more so, it is initiated based upon only the newspapers
information. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate that this contempt
proceeding should not survive for consideration.
Consequently, this contempt proceeding is hereby dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep
Page | 4
