Manipur High Court
Nandeibam Bose Singh vs State Of Manipur & 3 Ors on 10 March, 2025
1
LAIREN Digitally
by
signed
MAYUM LAIRENMAYUM
INDRAJEET I tem Nos. 3 & 4
INDRAJE SINGH
ET
Date:
2025.03.10
I N THE HI GH COURT OF MANI PUR
16:12:21
SINGH +05'30' AT I MPHAL
WP( C) No. 192 of 2025
With MC(WP(C)) No. 188 of 2025
Nandeibam Bose Singh Petitioner
Vs.
State of Manipur & 3 ors. Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE AHANTHEM BI MOL SI NGH
10.03.2025
Heard Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel assisted by
Ms. Rinika Maibam, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner.
I ssue notice, returnable within 4(four) weeks.
Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned G.A., entered appearance and
accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. Hence, no
formal notice is called for in respect of the said respondents.
Petitioner is to take steps for service of notice upon respondent
No. 4 by way of speed post service.
Steps should be taken within 2(two) weeks and the petitioner
is to file an affidavit showing proof of service of such notice.
I have heard at length the submission advanced by Mr. M.
Hemchandra, learned senior counsel, with regard to the prayer for
passing interim order.
The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that as per the
guidelines issued by the authority, the petitioner is the only
competent eligible officer to handle the work related to I TNO
(PMGSY) and that by the impugned order, the reallocation of the
work in respect of the I TNO (PMGSY) to the private respondent No.
4 is in contravention of the guidelines as the said respondent No. 4
is not competent to look after such work. I n support of his contention,
the learned senior counsel submitted that a thing which cannot be
done directly cannot be done indirectly. I n this regard, the learned
senior counsel cited the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & anr. Vrs. State
of Gujarat & ors. reported in ( 2004) 5 SCC 353 . The learned
senior counsel, accordingly, prays for passing interim order for
suspending the operation of the impugned orders dated 12.02.2025
& 14.02.2025.
On the other hand, Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned G.A. appearing
for the State respondents, submitted that the Government is the
competent authority to allocate works to its employees and the
petitioner has no enforceable right to claim that he should be given
certain allocation of work. The learned G.A. accordingly, seeks some
time to file an affidavit and to hear the prayer for passing interim
order on the next date.
I n view of the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that
the prayer for passing interim order needs to be heard again after
filing of the counter affidavit by the respondents, in as much as, the
allocation of work to its employees of an organization or of the
government lies exclusively to the employer/ the government.
Accordingly, list these cases again on 21.04.2025 for
consideration of the prayer for passing interim order.
JUDGE
I ndrajeet
