Manipur High Court
State Of Manipur & 7 Ors vs Pheiroijam Heramani & 6 Ors on 19 June, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
1
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2025.06.20
13:15:24 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WA No.9 of 2024
State of Manipur & 7 Ors.
Appellants
Vs.
Pheiroijam Heramani & 6 Ors.
Respondents
With
MC(WA)No.20 of 2024 With
MC(WA) No.21 of 2024 With
MC(WA)No.22 of 2024 With
MC(WP(C))No.110 of 2024 with
WA No. 10 of 2024 With
WA No.11 of 2024 With
WP(c)No.140 of 2024
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
(ORDER)
(K. SOMASHEKAR, C.J.)
19.06.2025.
[1] Learned AG, Mr. Lenin Hijam for the State of Manipur is
present before the court physically and similarly, Mr.N. Jotendro, learned
senior counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and inclusive of Mrs. Ayangleima,
learned counsel for respondent Nos. 9 to 15 and Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar,
2
learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 8, 9 & 10 are present before
the court physically.
[2] Whereas the proceeding in WA No.9 of 2024 has been filed
challenging the impugned order rendered by the learned Single Judge on
the writ side in the proceeding of WP(C)No.205 of 2023 and connected
cases dated 18.04.2023. However, the aforesaid appeal is connected with
the items Nos. 2 to 8 but the proceeding in item No.8 has been filed by the
petitioner and wherein in this matter, the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner who is present before the court physically emphatically submitting
relating to the scope of section 109 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act,
1994.
[3] Whereas, the learned AG, Mr. Lenin Hijam in this matter is
submitting that the proceeding in WA No.9 of 2024 has been filed by the
State challenging the order rendered by the writ court on the writ side in its
order dated 18.04.2023 but in this writ appeal, Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned AG
has taken us through the scope of section 22 of the Manipur Panchayati
Raj Act, 1994 and the learned AG in further submitting that the scope of
section 22 of the aforesaid Act is applicable immediately after the
establishment of such Gram Panchayat under the aforesaid Act and
thereafter, it is not applicable. Further he is submitting that the scope of
section 109 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is relating to some
difficulties and that difficulties are required to be removed by the State and
3
that domain is vested with the State authority. This is the forceful
submission made by the learned AG in this matter.
[4] Whereas the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in
WP(C)No.140 of 2024 and whereby the said senior counsel has taken us
to the scope of 109 of Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and there are
some virus and that virus required to be removed and this is the
contentious contention taken by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition but this writ petition has been filed
only after disposal of the proceeding in WP(C)No.205 of 2023 and other
matters but the proceeding in WA No.9 of 2024 has been filed challenging
the order dated 18.04.2023 rendered by the learned Single Judge on the
writ side in WP(C)No.205 of 2023 and connected matters. However,
keeping in view the scope of the legality in question in WA.No.9 of 2024
and whereby urging the various grounds and so also various grounds taken
by the petitioner in proceeding of WP(C)No.140 of 2024 but this writ petition
has been filed by the petitioner only after the disposal of the aforesaid
WP(C)No.205 of 2023. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid provision
of law and more importantly, keeping in view the provision of Article 243(e)
of the Constitution of India and the duration of the period of a members of
the Panchayat Raj is only for a period of 5(five) years and subsequently, in
case, it is not possible for formation of Panchayat Raj and establishment of
4
that Committee then only to be extended for a period of 6(six) months and
the same has been indicated in the aforesaid provision of law.
[5] However, the learned AG in the aforesaid appeal as well as
the learned senior counsel, Mr. Jotendro have referred to the order
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme of India in a Civil Appeal Nos.5020-5025
of 2025, arising of the aforesaid matters respectively whereas in para 7 of
the aforesaid order rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme of India, it indicates
that the parties assure us that they will extend full cooperation to the High
Court for early adjudication of the matter. Keeping in view the status in
between the parties in the appeal proceeding as well as the parties to the
writ proceeding which is in item No.8 are concerned, it is deemed
appropriate to refer the provision of section 11 of CPC and wherein section
11 of CPC is in respect of res judicata i.e. no court shall try any suit or issue
in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and
substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between
parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same
title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which
such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally
decided by such Court. However, the proceeding in WP(C)No.205 of 2023
has been initiated by the petitioner challenging the appointment of
Administrator keeping in view the provision under Section 109 of the
5
Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 whereas section 11 of CPC it is
indicating in as:
Explanation I.- The expression ” former suit” shall denote a
suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question
whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.
Explanation II.- For the purposes of this section, the
competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of
any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of
such Court.
Explanation III – The matter above referred to must in the
former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied
or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
Explanation IV – Any matter which might and ought to have
been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit
shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and
substantially in issue in such suit.
Explanation V – Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not
expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of
this section, be deemed to have been refused.
Explanation VI – Where persons litigate bona fide in respect
of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for
themselves and others, all persons interested in such right
6shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim
under the persons so litigating.
Explanation VII – The provisions of this section shall apply to
a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in
this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed
as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution
of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a
former proceeding for the execution of that decree.
Explanation VIII – An issue heard and finally decided by a
Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue,
shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit,
notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not
competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which
such issue has been subsequently raised.
[6] Therefore, the aforesaid section 11 of CPC has been in
keeping in view the explanation I to VIII and equally keeping in view section
115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in respect of law of estoppel but the
issue in between the appellants and the respondents has already been
decided extensively in the proceeding in WP(C)No.205 of 2023 dated
18.04.2023 and the same has been challenged under this appeal raising
various grounds. However, the scope of section 22 of the Manipur
Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and equally the scope of section 109 of the
7Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and these issues are required to be
decided as in the proceeding of WA No.9 of 2024 but the learned senior
counsel has been emphatically emphasizing to decide the issue in
WP(C)No.140 of 2024 and whereby in that writ petition seeking direction to
the State authorities to set aside the guidelines. All these issues are
involved in the writ appeals as well as in the writ proceeding and therefore,
keeping in view section 11 of CPC relating to the scope of res judicata and
inclusive of the explanation I to VIII and inclusive of the scope of section
115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relating to the law of estoppel. This
scope is to be clarified by the learned AG in these matters whereby
representing the appeal and similarly, learned senior counsel for the writ
petitioner in the aforesaid WP(C)No.140 of 2024 and thereafter, the issue
involved in between the appellants and the respondents has to be decided
and equally between the writ petitioner and the respondents in the writ
proceeding.
[7] However, the instant writ petition has been initiated keeping in
view the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the issue
was already decided by writ proceeding in WP(C)No.205 of 2023 and
connected matters and this submission which is made by the learned AG
for the appellants in the aforesaid appeal matters and therefore, the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition be
directed to clarify the position of law in respect of the scope of 11 and
8
inclusive of the Explanation I to VIII as well as the scope of section 115 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in respect of law of estoppel so as to decide
the issue in between the parties. Accordingly, made an observations.
[8] In the meanwhile, the learned AG and also the learned senior
counsel for petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition be directed to submit the
synoptic notes in terms of their arguments in detail relating to the scope of
section 22 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 inclusive of the scope
of section 109 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 to address the issue
in between the issue in between the respondents and appellants and
equally in between the writ petitioner and the respondents. However,
clubbing order has been rendered by the learned Single Judge on the writ
side. Accordingly, made an observations.
[9] Whereas, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid
Special Leave proceeding order dated 03.04.2025, it is stated that we
dispose of these appeals, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, with a request to the Division Bench, before which the matter is
to be listed, to provide an expeditious hearing, with an endeavor to resolve
the controversy within three months. Therefore, keeping in view the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Special
Leave Petition(Civil), it is directed that the learned AG for the State inclusive
of the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner in the aforesaid writ
petition which has been initiated subsequent to the disposal of the
9
WP(C)No.205 of 2023 clubbing with other writ petitions and rendering an
order dated 18.04.2023 but the scope of section 109 of the Manipur
Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the issue has been raised by the learned
senior counsel in the aforesaid writ petition but keeping in view the scope
of “issue estoppel” and also “res judicata”, there is a distinction between
them. There is a distinction between the “issue estoppel” and also “res
judicata”. Res judicata debars a court from exercising its jurisdiction to
determine the lis if it has attained finality between the parties whereas the
doctrine issue estoppel is invoked against the party. If such an issue is
decided against him, he would be estopped from raising the same in the
latter proceeding. The doctrine of res judicata creates a different kind of
estoppel, it was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of reported in AIR
2005 SC 626. Therefore, the learned senior counsel be directed to clarify
the law of estoppel as under section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
relating to the estoppel inclusive of the explanation I to VIII respectively in
section 11 of CPC. Accordingly made an observations.
[10] However, the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner
including the learned AG be directed to further clarify the position of section
22(1)(a) and inclusive of section 109 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act,
1994 as well as the 243(e) of the Constitution of India.
[11] In the meanwhile, on completion of the dictation made on the
basis of the learned AG for the appellants and inclusive in the rank of the
10
respondents in the aforesaid writ proceeding and whereby the learned
senior counsel Mr. N. Jotendro for the writ petitioner in WP(C)No.140 of
2024 submitted that the petitioner is not inclined to persuade this writ
petition and seeking for withdrawal of the same and in the meanwhile, the
said senior counsel is filing a memo in writing for seeking permission for
withdrawal of aforesaid writ petition and the memo is also taken on record.
Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the aforesaid writ
proceeding in WP(C)No.140 of 2024 as sought for.
[12] Registry is directed to list the matters on 09.07.2025.
[13] In the meanwhile, for deferment of these proceedings,
keeping in view the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme court of India
in the proceeding of Civil Appeal Nos. 5020-5025 of 2025 which is stated
supra, and whereby the learned AG in these matters seeking for extension
of interim order. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
aforesaid Civil Appeal Nos. 5020-5025 of 2025 observed that the matters
should be expeditiously disposed of by giving opportunity to both the parties
and it should be decided within a period of 3(three) months and that period
of three month would be ended on 16th of July, 2025 and even the certified
copy of the same has been obtained by the parties on 17.04.2025.
[14] However, keeping in view the status in these matters are
concerned and also keeping in view the provision of section 151 of CPC
and whereby the learned AG seeking for extension of interim order has
11
been granted but keeping in view the scope of Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure that there is no limit to exercise the inherent power, either
effecting or affecting any orders under this code, that is the first limb of the
said provision of law, the second limb of the said provision of law relating to
preventing the abuse of process of law, whereas the third limb of the said
provision of law is seeking for securing the ends of justice. Therefore, keeping
in view the section 151 of CPC, it is deemed appropriate that the earlier
interim order granted by this court shall be extended till the next date of
hearing.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE John Kom