Manipur High Court
Iv. Whether The Tenure Of The Elected … vs Shri Pheiroijam Heramani Aged About 50 … on 29 August, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.A. No. 9 of 2024
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner/ Secretary (RD
& PR), Government of Manipur, New Secretariat, North Block, Imphal
West, Manipur-795001.
2. The Director (RD & PR), Manipur, having its office at Old Secretariat,
South Block, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal, Government of Manipur, P.O. &
P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur-795138.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur, Government of Manipur, P.O. &
P.S. Bishnupur, Bishnupur District, Manipur-795126.
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East, Government of Manipur, P.O.
& P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795005.
6. The Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West, Government of Manipur, P.O.
& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
7. The Deputy Commissioner, Jiribam, Government of Manipur, P.O. &
P.S. Jiribam, Jiribam District, Manipur-795116.
8. The Deputy Commissioner, Kakching, Government of Manipur, P.O. &
P.S. Kakching, Kakching District, Manipur-795103.
9. Shri Mutum Boren Singh, aged about 52 years, resident of Kwakeithel
Laishram Leikai, Imphal, P.O. Imphal HO, District-Imphal West,
Manipur - 795001.
10. Shri Konjengbam Jayenta Singh aged about 50 years S/o Konjengbam
Laimani Singh of Kwakeithel Konjeng Leikai, Imphal, Imphal West,
Manipur - 795001.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 1 of 72
11. Shri Chongtham Ranjan Singh, aged about 40 years, S/o Chongtham
Budhichandra Singh of Heirangoithong Naoriya Pakhanglakpa Leikai,
Imphal, Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.
12. Shri Laishram Johnson Singh, aged about 34 years, S/o L. Somrendro
Singh, Malom Tuliyaima Awang Leikai, Malom Tuliyaima, P.O. Tulihal,
District - Imphal West, Manipur - 795140.
13. Shri Thoudam Apollo Mangang, aged about 34 years, S/o Thoudam
Angousana Mangang of Kodompokpi Mamang Leikai, Kodompokpi,
Imphal West, Manipur - 795009.
14. Shri Loitongbam Herojit Singh, aged about 38 years, S/o Loitongbam
Amuba Singh of Hiyangthang Mayai Leikai, Hiyangthang, Imphal West,
Manipur - 795009.
15. Shri Sapam Jiten Sing, aged about 42 years, S/o Sapam Jugeshwor
Singh of Langthabal Lep Awang Leikai, Canchipur, Manipur University,
Imphal West, Manipur - 795003.
... Appellants
- Versus -
1. Shri Pheiroijam Heramani aged about 50 years old, S/o. Ph. Biramani,
a resident of Charangpat Mamang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal
District, Manipur-795138.
2. Shri Sorokhaibam Imo Singh, aged about 55 years old, S/o.
Sorokhaibam Budhi Singh, a resident of Charangpat Mayai Leikai,
Charangpat Mamang, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur-
795138.
3. Shri Naorem Pradeep Singh aged about 40 years old, S/o. Naorem
Inaobi Singh, a resident of Tentha Khunjao Naorem Leikai, Tentha,
P.O. Wangjing & P.S. Kongjom, Thoubal District, Manipur-795148.
4. Shri Lourembam Rameshwar Singh, aged about 61 years old, S/o.
Lourembam Gulamjat Singh, a resident of Moirangkampu Mayai Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur- 795005.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 2 of 72
5. Shri Leimram Rajen Singh, aged about 64 years old, S/o. Leimram
Iboton Singh, a resident of Khurai Konsam Leikai, P.O. Lamlong & P.S.
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795010.
6. Shri Ngangom John Meetei, aged about 52 years old, S/o. Ng. Lalmani
Singh, a resident of Khurai Thongam Leikai, P.O. Lamlong & P.S.
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795010.
7. Smt. Aheibam Sunanta Devi @ Ngairangbam Sunanta Devi, aged about
50 years old, W/o. Aheibam Sharat Singh, a resident of Langthabal
Mantrikhong Mayai Leikai, Langthabal, P.O. Canchipur & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795003.
8. Shri Laishram Menjor Singh, aged about 53 years, S/O L. Rajmohon
Singh, resident of Nachou Awang Leikai, Ward No. 2, P.O. P.S. &
District, Bishnupur, Manipur - 795126.
9. Smt. L. Kananbala Devi, aged about 55 years, W/O L. Subashchandra
Singh, resident of Khurai Chingangbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur - 795005.
10. Shri Shanamatum Singh, aged about 43 years, S/O Kh. Ibo Singh,
resident of Ngaikhong Khullen Maning Leikai, P.O., P.S. & District
Bishnupur, Manipur - 795126.
... Respondents
With
W.A. No. 10 of 2024
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner/ Secretary (RD
& PR), Government of Manipur, New Secretariat, North Block, Imphal
West, Manipur-795001.
2. The Director (RD & PR), Manipur, having its office at Old Secretariat,
South Block, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795001.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 3 of 72
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal, Government of Manipur, P.O. &
P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur-795138.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur, Government of Manipur, P.O. &
P.S. Bishnupur, Bishnupur District, Manipur-795126.
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East, Government of Manipur, P.O.
& P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795005.
6. The Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West, Government of Manipur, P.O.
& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
7. The Deputy Commissioner, Jiribam, Government of Manipur, P.O. &
P.S. Jiribam, Jiribam District, Manipur-795116.
8. The Deputy Commissioner, Kakching, Government of Manipur, P.O. &
P.S. Kakching, Kakching District, Manipur-795103.
… Appellants
– Versus –
1. Shri Pheiroijam Heramani aged about 50 years old, S/o. Ph. Biramani,
a resident of Charangpat Mamang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal
District, Manipur-795138.
2. Shri Sorokhaibam Imo Singh, aged about 55 years old, S/o.
Sorokhaibam Budhi Singh, a resident of Charangpat Mayai Leikai,
Charangpat Mamang, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur-
795138.
3. Shri Naorem Pradeep Singh aged about 40 years old, S/o. Naorem
Inaobi Singh, a resident of Tentha Khunjao Naorem Leikai, Tentha,
P.O. Wangjing & P.S. Kongjom, Thoubal District, Manipur-795148.
4. Smt. Khangembam Manishang Devi aged about 51 years old, W/o.
Khanembam Priyojit Singh, a resident of Tentha Khongbal Mayai Leikai,
Tentha, P.O. Wangjing & P.S. Kongjom, Thoubal District, Manipur-
795148.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 4 of 72
5. Shri Ngangom John Meetei, aged about 52 years old, S/o. Ng. Lalmani
Singh, a resident of Khurai Thongam Leikai, P.O. Lamlong & P. S.
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795010.
6. Mrs. Wahida Banu aged about 47 years old, W/o. Kamarudin, a
resident of Yairipok Changamdabi Makha Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Yairipok,
Imphal East District, Manipur-795149.
7. Md. Fazlur Rahman aged about 49 years old, S/o. Md. Babu Khan, a
resident of Kshetri Bengoon Mayai Leikai, Kshetrigao, P.O. & P.S.
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795005.
8. Mrs. Muktiyar aged about 52 years old, W/o. Md. Basiruddin, a resident
of Urup Khunou Makha Leikai, P.O. Lilong & P.S. Irilbung, Imphal East
District, Manipur-795130.
9. Shri Kangabam Chourajit Singh aged about 50 years old, S/o.
Kangabam Noyon Singh of Langdum Maning Leikai, P.O. Singjamei &
P.S. Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur-795008.
10. Md. Saphauddin aged about 32 years old, S/o. Md. Ziaoddin of
Kiyamgei Awang Leikai, Kiyamgei Muslim, P.O. Canchipur & P.S.
Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur-795008.
11. Abdul Khalique aged about 58 years old, S/o. Abdur Rahaman, a
resident of Yairipok Yairipok Tulihal Toupokpi Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Yairipok, Imphal East District, Manipur-795149.
12. The Manipur State Election Commission represented by Secretary, the
Manipur State Election Commission, Office at Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S.
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795004.
… Respondents
And
W.A. No. 11 of 2024
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner/ Secretary (RD
& PR), Government of Manipur, New Secretariat, North Block, Imphal
West, Manipur-795001.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 5 of 72
2. The Director (RD & PR), Manipur, having its office at Old Secretariat,
South Block, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East, SIRD Complex, Porompat,
P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795005.
… Appellants
– Versus –
1. Md. Fazlur Rahman aged about 49 years old, S/o. Md. Babu Khan, a
resident of Kshetri Bengoon Mayai Leikai, Kshetrigao, P.O. & P.S.
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur -795005.
2. Md. Najimuddin aged about 41 years old, S/o. Mazid, a resident of
Kshetri Bengoon Makha Leikai, Kshetrigao, P.O. & P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur-795005.
3. Mrs. Ibemma aged about 41 years old, W/o. Md. Khalil Shah, a resident
of Kshetri Awang Leikai, Kshetrigao, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur- 795005.
4. Md. Qutub Ali, aged about 49 years old, S/o. Muhammad Ahamed Ali,
a resident of Kshetri Mayai Leikai, Kshetrigao, P.O. & P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur-795005.
5. Mrs. Taslima Begum, aged about 43 years old, W/o. Md. Ziyauddin
Khan, a resident of Kshetri Makha Leikai, Kshetrigao, P.O. & P.S.
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795005.
6. Wajiida Benu aged about 47 years old, W/o. Kamarudin, a resident of
Yairipok Changamdabi Makha Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Yairipok, Imphal East
District, Manipur-795149.
… Respondents
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 6 of 72
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the appellants : Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General of
India, Mr. Lenin Hijam, A.G. &
Mr. A. Bheigya, Jr. G.A.,
For the respondents : Mr. N. Ibotombi, Sr. Adv. & Ms. N. Savitri, Adv.,
Mr. N. Jotendro, Adv. & Md. S. Murtaza Ahmed,
Adv.,
For the Intervenors : Mr. S. Biswajit, Sr. Adv. & Ms. N. Priesta, Adv.,
Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Sr. Adv., Ms. Kh. Maria,
Adv. & Mrs. L. Ayangleima
Date of reserved : 28.07.2025/31.07.2025/01.08.2025.
Date of Judgment : 29.08.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER [CAV]
(As per CJ & A. Guneshwar Sharma, J)
[1] The important questions of law involved in the present batch
of writ appeals are:-
I. Whether the tenure of the Panchayat bodies
established under Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
(in short MPR Act, 1994) can be extended beyond the
stipulated period of 5(five) years by Section 20 of the
Act as well as in violation of the mandate of the
Article 243E of the Constitution of India?
II. Whether Section 22 of the MPR Act, 1994 is
transitionary or permanent in nature?
III. Who are competent to be appointed as members of
the Administrative Committee within the meaning of
Section 22(1) of the Act?
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 7 of 72
IV. Whether the tenure of the elected members of the
Panchayat be extended beyond 5(five) years period
till the elections are held in terms of the amended
provision of Section 22(3) of the Manipur Panchayati
Raj (Amendment) Act, 1996 [in short MPR
(Amendment) Act, 1996]?
V. What is the scope of Section 109 of the MPR Act, 1994
providing power to remove difficulties?
VI. Whether exercising power of the Section 109 of the
MPR Act, 1994 can the tenure of the existing elected
members or Administrative Committee for Gram
Panchayat established under Section 22(1)(b) read
with Section 22 (2) of the Act or Administrator for
Zilla Parishad under Section 92 of the Act, be
appointed for a tenure exceeding 6(six) months or till
the elections are conducted?
[2] Heard Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Attorney General of
India along with Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate General, Manipur
assisted by Mr. A. Bheigya, learned jr. GA on behalf of the State appellants;
Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. N. Savitri, learned
counsel; Mr. N. Jotendro, learned sr. counsel assisted by Md. Syed
Murataza Ahmed, learned counsel on behalf of the contesting
respondents/ writ petitioners; Mr. S. Biswajit, learned sr. counsel assisted
by Ms. N. Priesta, learned counsel; Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned sr.
counsel assisted by Mr. Kh. Maria, learned counsel and Mrs. L. Ayangleima,
learned counsel for the intervenors.
[3] The present writ appeals have been preferred by the State
Authorities being aggrieved by the common impugned judgment and order
dated 18.04.2023 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in the batch of writ
petitions being WP(C) No. 266 of 2023, WP(C) No. 205 of 2023 & WP(C)
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 8 of 72
No. 239 of 2023 whereby, the elected representatives of the Gram
Panchayat (in short GP) which tenure had already been expired in the year,
2022 of the 6 (six) valley districts i.e. Imphal East, Imphal West, Thoubal,
Bishnupur, Kakching and Jiribam were directed to function till the election
notification has been issued as done in the case of 27 Urban Local Bodies
order dated 19.01.2023 in WP(C) No. 935 of 2022 and connected cases.
[4] The W.A. No. 9 of 2024 is preferred against the common
judgment in WP(C) No. 205 of 2023, the W.A. No. 10 of 2024 is preferred
against WP(C) No. 266 of 2023 and the W.A. No. 11 of 2024 is preferred
against WP(C) No. 239 of 2023. MC(WA) No. 58 of 2025, MC(WA) No. 57
of 2025, MC(WA) No. 59 of 2025 has been filed for intervention of the
elected members of Panchayat for intervening in WA No. 9 of 2024.
[5] The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions being WP(C)
No. 266 of 2023, WP(C) No. 205 of 2023 & WP(C) No. 239 of 2023 are the
elected members of the Panchayat election held in the year, 2017 and their
terms expired in the year, 2022. Since election could not be held
immediately, State cabinet took a decision dated 02.01.2023 in terms of
the provision of Section 22(1)(a)(i) read with Section 22(1)(b)(i) of the
MPR Act, 1994 for appointment of Administrative Committee of each GP.
In pursuance to the cabinet decision dated 02.01.2023, Joint Secretary
(Rural Development & Panchayati Raj), Government of Manipur issued a
letter dated 23.01.2023 to the Deputy Commissioners (in short DC) of
Imphal East, Imphal West, Thoubal, Bishnupur, Kakching and Jiribam
informing them to take up necessary actions for issuance of requisite
notification for appointment of Administrative Committee in terms of the
cabinet decision. By another order dated 23.01.2023, Joint Secretary (RD
& PR), Govt. of Manipur appointed the DCs of Imphal East, Imphal West,
Thoubal, Bishnupur, Kakching and Jiribam as Administrator for 6(six) Zilla
Parishads of respective districts with immediate effect. However, the
appointment of 6(six) DCs as Administrator for 6 Zilla Parishads, vide order
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 9 of 72
dated 23.01.2023 issued by the Joint Secretary (RD & PR) Govt. of Manipur
was stayed by Ld. Single Judge vide order dated 02.03.2023 in WP(C) No.
205 of 2023.
[6] Thereafter, vide order dated 03.03.2023 issued by Deputy
Commissioner, Imphal East, the Administrative Committee for GP of
Sawombung, Heingang and Keirao CD Block of Imphal East district were
appointed in terms of the cabinet decision dated 02.01.2023. In WP(C) No.
266 of 2023, the petitioners challenged the order dated 23.01.2023 issued
by Joint Secretary (RD & PR), Govt. of Manipur intimating cabinet decision
dated 02.01.2023 for constitution of Administrative Committee of each
Gram Panchayat in all districts and also the order dated 03.03.2023 issued
by DC, Imphal East appointing the Administrative Committees for the GP
of Sawombung, Heingang and Keirao CD Block of Imphal East and order
dated 21.03.2023 issued by the Joint Secretary (RD & PR), Govt. of
Manipur appointing the 6(six) DCs of Imphal East, Imphal West, Thoubal,
Bishnupur, Kakching and Jiribam as Administrator for 6 Zilla Parishad of 6
districts and also the prayer for elected members of Panchayats whose
terms has already been expired be permitted to continue till the notification
of the election in terms of the provision of Section 22(3) of the MPR
(Amendment) Act, 1996.
[7] In WP(C) No. 205 of 2023, the petitioners challenged the
letter dated 23.01.2023 issued by Joint Secretary (RD & PR), Govt. of
Manipur, thereby, intimating cabinet decision dated 02.01.2023 for
constitution of Administrative Committee for each Gram Panchayat along
with order dated 23.01.2023 issued by Joint Secretary (RD & PR), Govt. of
Manipur appointing 6(six) DCs of Imphal East, Imphal West, Thoubal,
Bishnupur, Kakching and Jiribam as Administrator of respective 6(six) Zilla
Parishads. In WP(C) No. 239 of 2023, the petitioners challenged the letter
dated 23.01.2023 of Joint Secretary (RD & PR), Govt. of Manipur for
intimating cabinet decision dated 02.01.2023, regarding constitution of
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 10 of 72
Administrative Committee for each GP along with order dated 23.01.2023
issued by the Joint Secretary (RD & PR), Govt. of Manipur whereby,
discontinued the elected Zilla Parishad of the year, 2017 (5th Panchayat
Election, 2017) and appointment of DCs of 6(six) districts as Administrator.
These writ petitions were taken up together and disposed of by the
common impugned judgment and order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the
Learned Single Judge. It was held in ‘para 35’ of the judgment that after
the expiry of the 5(five) years terms of the 5th Panchayat Election held in
the year, 2017 the State could not conduct any election for the 6th
Panchayat Election in terms of the provision of MPR Act, 1994. It is also
observed that the provision of Section 22(3) of the Amended Act of 1996
permits the earlier members of the Panchayats to be appointed as
Administrative Committee and permitted the existing members to look
after the expiry of its term till the completion of election as done in the
case of 27 Urban Local Bodies and the Autonomous District Council of the
State of Manipur as per order dated 19.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 935
of 2022 and connected cases and the relevant paras are reproduced herein
below:
“[35] After the dissolution of Gram Panchayat consequent
upon the completion of five years term, the State authorities
have neither proceeds for holding election for 6th Panchayat
Elections in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1994 nor
inclined to continue the former elected representatives of 5th
General Election of Panchayat, 2017 as per the general
instructions stated in the letter dated 17.2.2023, wherein in
paragraph no. ii, it has been stated that there is no restriction
regarding the earlier members of Ward or Pradhans of the
Gram Panchayat to be appointed as Administrative
Committees and the same is also permissible as per the
provision of Section 22(3) of the Amended Act of 1996. As
such, the continuation of the former elected representatives
of Gram Panchayat shall be no bar with regard to the
democratic norms in all elected Institutions. In the aforesaid
factual background, it would be in the larger interest forW.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 11 of 72
allowing the elected representatives of Gram Panchayat to
look after their respective posts till the new election is held
as done in the case of other elected institutions including
Urban Local Bodies and Autonomous District Council of the
state of Manipur as per the order dated 19.1.2023 passed in
W.P.(C) No. 935 of 2022 and connected cases.
[36] Since the State Election Commission has initiated
steps for holding General Elections to Municipal Councils and
Imphal Municipal Corporation, this Court is hereby request
the State Election Commission to hold the 6th General
Election to Panchayats, 2023 to Gram Panchayats in
consultation with the State Government as expeditiously as
possible without any further delay as holding the election for
the post of Pradhan, Zilla Parishad and Members are
mandatory as per the Constitution.
[37] For all the reasons stated above and following the
order dated 04.11.2022 and 19.1.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.
935 of 2022 and connected cases, the present writ petitions
are disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities
to allow the elected representatives of Gram Panchayats to
function through their respective posts and Zilla Parishads of
six Districts, namely Bishnupur, Imphal East, Imphal West,
Jiribam, Kakching and Thoubal to function through their
respective elected representatives till the election notification
of the same is issued like the cases of 27 Urban Local Bodies
as per the order dated 19.1.2023 in W.P. (C) No. 935 of 2022
and connected cases. There will be no order as to costs.”
[8] Being aggrieved by the common impugned judgment and
order dated 18.04.2023, the State Govt. have filed the present writ appeals
being WA No. 9 of 2024, WA No. 10 of 2024, WA No. 11 of 2024 against
the common judgment of writ petitions being WP(C) No. 266 of 2023,
WP(C) No. 205 of 2023 & WP(C) No. 239 of 2023 respectively on the
following grounds :-
A. The provision of Section 22 of MPR Act, 1994 and the MPR
(Amendment) Act, 1996 are not applicable in the presentW.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 12 of 72
cases as these are to be applicable only in case of immediate
situation under the establishment of GP for the first time i.e.
as evident from the word [immediately after establishment
of such GP occur in Section 22(1)(a)] such situation only in
case when election could not be held for the constitution of
first GP after the establishment of MPR Act, 1994. Non-
holding of election in the 7th General Election GP is not within
the ambit of Section 22 of MPR Act, 1994 as well as MPR
(Amendment) Act, 1996.
B. After the expiry of the 5th General Panchayat Election 2017
in the month of October, 2022 the provision of Section 22(3)
of the MPR Act, 1994 and MPR (Amendment) Act, 1996 are
not applicable for the continuation of the elected member of
the 5th Panchayat Election, 2017.
C. The Ld. Single Judge was wrong in directing continuation of
the term of the elected member of the 5th General
Panchayat Election, 2017 under Section 22(3) of the MPR
Act, 1994 as amended by Act, of 1996. Section 109 of the
MPR Act, 1994 is the only provisions to solve the problem of
non-holding of election of the 6th General Panchayat Election
before the expiry of the term of 5th General Panchayat
Election, 2017.
D. The orders appointing Administrator and Administrative
Committee of the Zilla Parishad and GP were issued by the
State Authorities under Section 109 of the Act as a residuary
power to remove difficulties.
E. The appointment of DCs as Administrators for 6(six) Zilla
Parishads and not for the Panchayats. Section 22 of the MPR
Act, refers only to Panchayat and as such, the observations
in ‘para 32’ of the impugned order dated 18.04.2023 is
wrong. The removal of the word ‘Administrator’ by 1996W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 13 of 72
amendment from Section 22 of the Act is related to the
Panchayat only and not to the Zilla Parishad.
[9] The State Govt. filed similar counter affidavit inter-alia on
the ground that the terms of the 5th General Election of Panchayat, 2017
expired in the month of October, 2022 and election to the 6th General
Election of the Panchayat could not be held on time, before the expiry of
5(five) years term due to pending of WP(C) No. 586 of 2022 in terms of
the order dated 05.08.2022 passed by this Court. In the circumstances,
State Govt., in order to fill the void in the administration of the Panchayat
election, took a decision dated 02.01.2023 to appoint DCs of the 6(six)
valley districts as Administrators for each of the 6(six) Zilla Parishads and
to set up Administrative Committee for GP as an interim arrangement till
election were held or whichever is earlier.
[10] It is also stated that the Administrators were appointed
under Section 92 read with Section 109 of the MPR Act, 1994. Section
92(1)(a) of the Act provides that if any General Election of the Zilla
Parishad has been stayed by competent Court or Authority, the Govt. shall
appoint an Administrator for the period not exceeding 6(six) months. The
interim order dated 05.08.2022 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 581 of
2022 directed the State Govt. not to take up any further action pursuant
to the notification dated 22.06.2022 in connection with the declaring of 4th
GP, Kangpokpi district for conduct of Panchayat election. Accordingly, the
State Govt. have taken up measures to appoint Administrative Committee
for each GP vide letter dated 23.01.2023 issued by the Administrative
Department under Section 22 of the MPR Act of 1994. In the circumstances
as an interim measure, the State Govt. have appointed Administrators for
6(six) Zilla Parishad and Administrative Committee till conduct of the 6th
Panchayat Election or for a period of 6(six) months, whichever is earlier.
It is submitted that the order issued by the State Govt. appointing
Administrators for the 6 (six) Zilla Parishad and Administrative CommitteeW.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 14 of 72
for each of the GP of the 6(six) valley districts are in order to fill up the
vacuum created by non-holding of the 6th Panchayat Election.
[11] The present cases relate to the provision of the MPR Act,
1994 and not under the provision of Manipur Municipalities Act, 1994. The
decision rendered in Urban Local Bodies and Autonomous District Council
under the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971 has no binding
effect in the case of Panchayat. The direction by the Learned Single Judge
for continuation of the elected member of the 5th Panchayat Election, 2017
even after the expiry of their terms under the provision of Section 22(3)
of the Act is wrong and in violation of the provision of the Constitution.
The direction of the Ld. Single Judge to the State govt. for appointment of
the former member of the ward and Pradhan of the GP as Administrative
Committee was wrong.
[12] Vide order dated 29.02.2024, in this batch of writ appeals
being WA No. 9 of 2024, WA No. 10 of 2024 & WA No. 11 of 2024 as well
as WP(C) No. 140 of 2024, this Court issued notice and stayed the direction
of Ld. Single Judge in the common impugned judgment and order dated
18.04.2025 with regard to permit the elected members of the GP and Zilla
Parishad to function in their respective post beyond the period mandated
by law and the relevant portions is reproduced as below:
“Having heard Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate General,
Manipur appearing on behalf of the State of Manipur and other
official appellants as well as Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the then elected representatives
(original writ petitioners) at length; in view of the clear and
unequivocal mandate of Article 243E of the Constitution of India
read in conjunction with the provision of Section 109 of the
Manipur Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, we are prima facie of the view
that it would be just and necessary to stay the operation of the
offending direction issued by the Ld. Single Judge in the common
impugned judgment and order dated 18.04.2023, inasmuch as, it
commands the official respondents to permit the elected
representatives of the Gram Panchayat and Zilla Parishads toW.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 15 of 72
function in their respective posts, beyond the period expressly
mandated by law; till the next date of hearing.
We, also prima facie, disagree with the reliance placed by
Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of
the elected representatives, on the amended Section 22 of the
Act; in view of the evident sine qua non provided therein that, the
provision of the same are attracted only in the event of the
provided for situation arising ‘immediately after the establishment
of the said Gram Panchayat’.
However, in order to obviate a situation, where the Gram
Panchayat and Zilla Parishads cannot function in accordance with
law; at the request of the learned Advocate General; we grant
liberty to the State of Manipur to appoint an Administrative
Committee for each Gram Panchayats and Zilla Parishads in
accordance with law and the provision of the Act, afresh.
[Reference: (1975) 3 SCC 765 (Madeva Upendra Sinai &
Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) Para No. 39 & 40]”
[13] The interim order dated 29.02.2024 passed by this Court in
this batch of writ appeals was challenged by the respondents herein
(original writ petitioners) before Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP(C)
Nos. 6396-6401 of 2024. Vide order dated 03.04.2025, Hon’ble Supreme
Court disposed of the SLP(C) Nos. 6396-6401 of 2024 by passing an
observation to the Division Bench of this Court to decide the matter on
merit and while doing so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not express any
opinion on merit and the relevant portion is reproduced below:
“O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The question that falls for consideration in these appeals is
whether the elected Members of the Gram Panchayat, whose five
years’ tenure is over, are entitled to continue as Members of the
Gram Panchayat, in the event of appointment of an Administrative
Committee or Administrator, as contemplated under Section 22 of
the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, `the Act’).
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, relies
upon Section 22(3) of the Act, as amended in 1996, wherein theW.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 16 of 72
word “cease” has been substituted by the word “continue”. On
the strength of the amended provision, it is urged that since the
elections of Gram Panchayat could not be held for various
reasons, the previously elected members of the Gram Panchayat
are entitled to continue until fresh elections are held.
4. On the other hand, learned Advocate General for the State
relies upon the powers purportedly contained in Section 22(1)(a)
and the non-obstante Clause in Section 109 of the Act, read with
Article 243E of the Constitution.
5. During the course of hearing, we find that what is challenged
before us is an interlocutory order passed by the High Court,
whereas the main Writ Appeal, in which the above-stated question
of law has been raised, is still pending before a Division 2 Bench
of the High Court. We are further informed that the High Court
has not been able to take up the main case on account of
pendency of these proceedings.
6. Since we would like to have the advantage of the opinion of
the High Court on the questions raised above, 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 endeavour
to resolve the controversy within three months.
7. Counsel for the parties assure us that they will extend full
cooperation to the High Court for early adjudication of the matter.
Ordered accordingly.
8. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
9. As a result, the pending interlocutory applications, including the
application for intervention, stand disposed of.”
[14] It may also be relevant to point out that on 19.06.2025,
during the course of hearing of this batch of writ appeals, Mr. N. Jotendro,
learned sr. counsel for the writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 140 of 2024 prayed
for withdrawal of the writ petition and accordingly, WP(C) No. 140 of 2024
challenging the validity of Section 109 of the Act of 1994, was dismissed
as withdrawn.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 17 of 72
[15] The appeals were heard on 28.07.2025, 31.07.2025 &
01.08.2025. Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Attorney General of India
representing the State of Manipur submits that under Article 243E of the
Constitution of India provides that the tenure of the Panchayat body is
5(five) years from the date of first sitting and the same is also stipulated
by Section 20 of the MPR Act, 1994. The election for the next GP is to be
held before the expiration of the 5(five) years period. In case election could
not be conducted and difficulties in holding election for any reasons,
Section 22 empowers the DC to appoint Administrative Committee
consisting of members qualified to be elected as member of GP and equal
to the number of members of such Panchayat under Section 17 or appoint
an Administrator.
[16] The learned Attorney General also states that Section 22(2)
of the Act, provides that the tenure of the Administrative Committee or
Administrator shall not exceed 6(six) months. Sub-section 3 of Section 22
stipulates that upon appointment of Administrative Committee or
Administrator under Sub-section 1, the elected members of the GP shall
cease to be member of such GP and all powers and duties of the GP shall
be exercised and performed by such Administrative Committee or
Administrator and the case may be. Sub-section 4 provides that
Administrative Committee or Administrator shall be deemed to be duly
constituted GP for the purpose of this Act.
[17] The learned Attorney General draws the attention of this
Court to the MPR (Amendment) Act, 1996 to Sub-section 3 of Section 22
of the Act where, the word ‘cease’ has been substituted by word ‘continue’
and the word ‘Administrator’ has been deleted from Section 22 by Section
6 of the MPR (Amendment) Act, 1996. The new Sub-section 5 i.e. Section
22(5) provides that if the first election to the GP after the commencement
of the Act cannot be held, then the State Govt. may appoint Administrative
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 18 of 72
Committee to exercise power, perform duties and function of the GP not
exceeding 6(six) months.
[18] The learned Attorney General submits that the provision of
Section 22 of the MPR Act, 1994 is transitionary and will be applicable for
the institution of first GP after the enforcement of the Act of 1994. He
stated that the MPR Act, 1994 repeals the MPR Act, 1975. Section 22 of
the Act of 1975 also provides that the term of the GP shall be 5 years from
the date of its constitution and its proviso empowers the State Govt. to
extend the terms from time to time for a total period not exceeding 1(one)
year in aggregate and the relevant section 22 of the MPR Act, 1975 is
reproduced below:
“22. Term of Gram Panchayat :-
The term of Gram Panchayat, unless sooner dissolved, shall be
five years from the date of its constitution and the expiry of the
said period of five years shall operate as dissolution of the Gram
Panchayat :
Provided that the State Government may, by notification, extend
the term from time to time for a total period not exceeding one
year in the aggregate.”
[19] The learned Attorney General has pointed out that unlike
Section 22 of the Act of 1975 which provides for extension of the term of
GP upto a period not exceeding 1 year in aggregate, there is no such
parallel provision in the Act of 1994. He further submits that the plea of
transitionary nature of Section 22 will be evident from the provision of
Section 22(5) which has been added by 1996 amendment Act that in case
of failure to conduct first election of the GP for the enforcement of 1994
Act, the State Govt. may appoint Administrative Committee to exercise the
power and to perform the duties and functions of the GP not exceeding 6
months. On a conjoint reading of the provision of Section 22(2) & Section
22(3) as amended by MPR (Amendment) Act, 1996 and new added
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 19 of 72
provision of Section 22(5) the term of the Administrative Committee shall
not exceed 6 months and such Administrative Committee has to be
confined to a situation where the first election under MPR Act, 1994 Act,
cannot be held due to any reasons.
[20] The learned Attorney General submits that the direction of
the Ld. Single Judge directing to permit the existing members of the 5th
General Election of Panchayat to continue as such members till the
notification of the next General Election is not provided under the statute
and against the mandate of Article 243E of the Constitution as well as
Section 20 of the Act which prescribed the tenure of the GP as 5(five)
years. Admittedly, unlike the MPR Act, 1975, there is no provision enabling
the State Govt. to extend the tenure of the GP after expiry of the 5 years.
[21] The learned Attorney General makes an alternate
submission that even if the provision of Section 22 is considered as a
permanent feature in the Act, there cannot be 2 sources of power (i) the
existing members which are allowed to continue by amended provision of
Section 22(3) and (ii) the Administrative Committee appointed under
Section 22(1)(b)(i). The tenure of the Administrative Committee appointed
under Section 22(1) of the Act cannot exceed the period of 6 months
provided under Section 22(2) of the Act. Even if the word ‘cease’ in Sub-
section 3 of the Section 22 of the Act has been replaced by ‘continue’
meaning thereby that the elected member of the Panchayat shall continue
to be a member of such GP, but the powers and duties of the GP shall be
exercised by the Administrative Committee appointed under Section
22(1)(b)(i). It is pointed out that by replacing the word ‘cease’ with
‘continue’ will not extend the tenure of the elected members after expiry
of their term and they will be only members on paper, as the real power
is to be exercised by Administrative Committee so appointed. Unless the
existing members of the GP are included as members of the Administrative
Committee, they will not have any power to exercise the function as such.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 20 of 72
It is also pointed out that since the tenure of Administrative Committee
cannot exceed 6 months in terms of the Sub-section 2 of the Section 22.
The direction to the State Govt. to allow the existing members to continue
till the notification of the election cannot be sustained and the same is
against the mandate of Article 243E as well as Section 20 of the MPR Act
of 1994. Further, the learned Attorney General submits that since the
applicability of Section 22 of the Act is a transitionary period to be confined
to the constitution of first GP, the State Govt. have to resort to the
provision of Section 109 empowering the State Govt. to remove difficulties.
The appointment of Administrative Committee as an interim measures to
fill-up the void created by non-holding of election in time. While exercising
the power under Section 109 and to have a fair representation of the cross
section from the eligible persons and to avoid pick & choose policy and
any discrimination, the rationale behind the provision of Section 22 of the
Act of 1994 is adopted. In the circumstances, whenever there is a failure
in holding election for the GP in time, State Govt. can resort to the powers
conferred by Section 109 of the Act by appointing Administrative
Committee as defined under Section 22 of the Act, in the manner provided
therein. However, the learned Attorney General has clarified that such
Administrative Committee appointed under Section 109 cannot exceed the
tenure of 6(six) months as prescribed by Section 22(2) of the Act.
[22] The learned Attorney General refers to the case law reported
as Municipal Corp., Greater Mumbai v. Century Textiles &
Industries: (2025) 3 SCC 183 @Para 67 regarding interpretation of
statute to the point that whenever there is contradiction between various
provisions of the Act, the construction which upholds the object of statute
has to be preferred so as to save the statute from absurdity and
unworkable. The learned Attorney General also submits that the Learned
Single Judge goes beyond the pleadings of the parties as provision of the
Section 22(3) is not pleaded in the writ petition by the petitioners therein
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 21 of 72
and giving a direction to allow the existing members to continue till the
holding of election is without any basis.
[23] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned sr. counsel for the contesting
respondents/ original writ petitioners submits that the provision of Section
17 of the MPR, Act 1994 provides for a GP and Section 20 prescribes the
tenure of every GP as 5 years from the date of its first sitting and election
to the next GP has to be conducted before the expiry of the term of the
current GP. The learned sr. counsel has pointed out that in case the
election of the GP cannot be held due to any reasons, the provision of
Section 22 provides for empowering the DC for appointment of
Administrative Committee or Administrator and the term of Administrative
Committee is not exceeding 6 months. Section 22(3) after its amendment
of 1996 states that even after the appointment of Administrative
Committee, the existing members of the GP shall continue to be members
of such GP. He further refers to Section 22(1)(b)(i) that the Administrative
Committee shall consist of persons qualified to be elected as members of
GP and equal to the number of member stipulated under Section 17. This
means that the numbers of Administrative Committee should be equal to
the numbers of Panchayat members as defined under Section 17. Reading
together, the provision of Section 22(1)(b)(i) with the provision of Section
22(3) to the effect that the existing members of the GP shall continue to
be members of such even after appointment of Administrative Committee
it implies that the Administrative Committee shall consist of only the
existing elected members of the outgoing Panchayat.
[24] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned sr. counsel explains that otherwise,
there will be 2(two) bodies which exercise the same power i.e.
Administrative Committee consisting of 10 members as appointed under
Section 22(1)(b)(i) and the existing 10 elected members of the GP as they
are to continue as members in terms of the Section 22(3) as amended in
1996. It is further submitted that there cannot be 2(two) bodies exercising
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 22 of 72
the same power and in order to avoid such redundancy and absurd
situation, the provisions of Section 21(1)(b) and Section 22(3) of the MPR
Act, 1994 (as amended in 1996) should be constructed harmoniously.
[25] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned sr. counsel submits that such a
situation can be achieved only when the existing members of the outgoing
GP are appointed as members of the Administrative Committee for that
GP. Accordingly, Ld. Single Judge directed in the common impugned
judgment that elected members of the outgoing GP should be allowed to
continue to exercise their duties till election are notified for the next GP.
The second proposition of Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned sr. counsel for the writ
petitioners is that there are precedents which allowed continuation of the
existing members of the outgoing body to continue till election are held.
The learned sr. counsel refers to the judgments reported as 2009 (5)
GLR 272, 2007 (3) GLT 899 and 2007 Legal Eagle (GAU) 322 and
the relevant portions is reproduced herein below:
“14. From the above discussion and also in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of writ petitions wherein the State-respondents and
the State Election Commission have admitted their failure to
perform their duties to carry out the mandate of the Constitution
of India discussed above, these writ petitions are dispose d of with
the following directions-
(a) The State Election Commission as contemplated under Article
243 K of the Constitution of India and the Section 114 of the
Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 is to function independently of the
State Government in the matter of their power of
superintendence, direction and control and conduct of all the
election to all the Gaon Panchayats, Anchalik Panchayats and Zilla
Parishads.
(b) The State Election Commission has to fix the date for holding
election to all the Gaon Panchayats, Anchalik Panchayats and Zilla
Parishads.
(c) The State respondents are to fulfill the requirements of the
State Elect ion Commission as may be necessary for the discharge
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 23 of 72
of the functions of the State Election Commission for holding
election to all Gaon Panchayats, Anchalik Panchayats and Zilla
Parishads.
(d) The Gaon Panchayat, Anchalik Panchayat and Zilla Parishad
whose terms had expired because of the failure on the part of the
State respondents and the St ate Election Commission to fulfill the
mandates of the Constitution to hold the election before the expiry
of their term shall be allowed to function till the constitution of
the new Gaon Panchayats, Anchalik Panchayats and Zilla
Parishads after completion of the election but they are not allowed
to take any major policy decision, make any expenditure from the
funds other than the payment of salaries of the staffs and routine
function of the office without the permission of this Court.
(e) All the elections to the Gaon Panchayats, Anchalik Panchayats
and Zilla Parishads shall be completed on or before 31.10.2007.”
[26] Mr. N. Jotendro, learned sr. counsel who is appearing on
behalf of the original writ petitioners also supports and adopts the
submissions of Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned sr. counsel. He submits that on
conjoint reading of Section 17 and Section 22 of the MPR Act, 1994 (as
amended in 1996), the Administrative Committee equal to the number of
Panchayat members, has to be appointed and the existing members of the
outgoing Panchayat shall continue. However, Mr. N. Jotendro, learned sr.
counsel has pointed out that Section 22(3) stipulates that the
Administrative Committee shall exercise all functions and powers of the
GP. When 2(two) bodies exist i.e. the elected member as well as the
Administrative Committee and under Section 22(3) of the Act, the
Administrative Committee is to exercise the function of GP shows that only
the elected member of the outgoing GP should be appointed as members
of the Administrative Committee so as to avoid the duality of power for the
same institute by two separate bodies. The learned sr. counsel has also
pointed out that in terms of the interim order dated 29.02.2024, the State
Govt. have issued various notifications for appointment of Administrative
Committee for the Gram Panchayats and Administrators for the Zilla
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 24 of 72
Parishad for the 6 (six) valley districts for a period till notification of the 6th
General Election of Panchayat is issued by the State Election Commission,
Manipur.
[27] It is stated that the provision of Section 109 of the Act is a
residuary enabling power, however it cannot override and dilute the
specific constitutional and statutory mandate under Article 243E of the
Constitution and Section 22(5) of the MPR (Amendment) Act, 1996. It is
pointed out that the provision of Section 109 does not authorize the State
for removal of duly elected bodies in the absence of the wrongful
dissolution or valid expiry followed by timely election. Even that assuming
temporary measures can be undertaken, the maximum period allowed
under Section 22(5) as inserted by amendment of 1996, prescribes the
maximum period of 6 months. It is also submitted that the appointment of
Administrative Committee in place of elected body by the DC in purported
exercise of Section 109 of the Act in compliance of the interim order dated
29.02.2024 violates the constitutional mandate of Article 243E of the
Constitution and statutory limitation under Sections 17 and 22 of the Act.
[28] On the other hand, Mr. S. Biswajit, learned sr. counsel for
the intervenors submits that in terms of the mandatory provision of Article
243E of the Constitution as well as Section 20 of the Act which prescribe
5 years as the tenure for the Panchayat, the existing elected members of
the GP whose tenure has already expired, cannot be extended till the
election is held in absence of any provision enabling such extension. Once
the tenure of the GP member expired, the member becomes functus officio
and the intervenors are the members of the Administrative Committee
appointed vide order dated 08.03.2024 and they are appointed as stop
gap arrangement till the notification of the 6th General Panchayat Election
issued by the State Election Commission, Manipur. The appointed
members of the Administrative Committee are very vital for implementing
various scheme under the MNNREGA and others project for development
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 25 of 72
and welfare of the GP and Zilla Parishad and many of the schemes and
projects are still undergoing. The intervenors and others have been
appointed as the members of the Administrative Committee by Screening
Committee on the recommendation of the DC concerned under Section
109 of the MPR Act, 1994 and this is an only stop gap arrangement till the
election are conducted.
[29] Mr. S. Biswajit, learned sr. counsel refers to the provisions
of Section 3(1) and Section 13(3) of the MPR Act, 1994 that every voter of
the GP is eligible to be elected as a member of the GP. The learned sr.
counsel further explains that provision of Section 22(1)(b)(i) of the Act
states that the member of the Administrative Committee shall consist of
such person eligible and qualified to be elected as the member of the GP
meaning thereby that all voters of the GP, the elected members of the GP,
the unsuccessful candidates in the last GP election and aspirant candidates
for the next GP are all eligible to be members of the Administrative
Committee. He differs from the plea of learned counsel for the writ
petitioners that only elected members of the GP should be appointed as
members of the Administrative Committee. He continues that all the
above-mentioned categories of persons i.e. all voters of the GP, the elected
members of the GP, the unsuccessful candidates in the last GP election
and aspirant candidate for the next GP are all eligible to be appointed as
members of the Administrative Committee, provided that they satisfy the
conditions mentioned in Section 22 read with Section 17 of the Act.
[30] Mr. S. Biswajit, learned sr. counsel draws the attention of
this Court to the provision of Section 22(3) as amended in 1996 Act that
the elected members of the GP whose tenure has already expired shall
continue to be members of the Administrative Committee. He has pointed
out that nothing is mentioned in the amended Section 23(3) that the
elected members of the GP shall exercise the functions and powers of the
GP. Even after the amendment in 1996, the Administrative Committee shall
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 26 of 72
alone exercise the powers, functions and duties of the GP. In other words,
the existing elected members will be only members for namesake by the
amendment Act of Section 22(3).
[31] It is submitted that the continuation of the term of the
Administrative Committee appointed in terms of the interim order dated
29.02.2024 passed by this Court is only for the smooth running of the GP.
The learned sr. counsel refers to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Suresh Mahajan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
reported in (2022) 12 SCC 770 in para no. 12 that the tenure of the
GP cannot go beyond 5 years under Article 243E of the Constitution and
the same cannot be extended and the relevant para is reproduced below:
“12. Therefore, we direct the State Election Commission by way
of interim order to issue election programme without any further
delay on the basis of the wards as per the delimitation done in
the local bodies concerned when the elections had become due
consequent to expiry of 5 (five) years term of the outgoing elected
body or before coming into force of the impugned Amendment
Act(s) whichever is later. On that notional basis, the State Election
Commission ought to proceed without any exception in respect of
local bodies concerned where elections are due or likely to be due
in the near future without waiting even for the compliance of triple
test by the State Government for providing reservation to Other
Backward Classes. We have no manner of doubt that only such
direction would meet the ends of justice and larger public interests
consistent with the constitutional mandate that the local self-
government must be governed by the duly elected
representatives uninterrupted except in case of its dissolution
before expiry of the term on permissible grounds.”
[32] It is also stated that the amendment in Section 22(3) by
substituting the word ‘cease’ with ‘continue’ does not ex post facto extend
the tenure of the GP beyond the 5 years. The object of the amendment of
1996 was to save the term of the election held in 1991 under the provision
of 1975 Act alone and it does not give any power to continue the elected
members in the subsequent election after the first term. He further submits
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 27 of 72
that Section 109 of the Act empowers the State to do anything to remove
any difficulties faced by it and the appointment of Administrative
Committee till the election are held is valid.
[33] The learned sr. counsel also submits that the judgment in
Uttar Dhemajigaon Panchayat and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors.
reported in 2007 (3) GLT 899 has been held as per incuriam as
violation of the Article 243E(1) of the Constitution in the case of Joynab
Bibi -vs- Union of India decided on 22.03.2024 by another bench of
Gahati High Court. It is submitted that former elected members of the
outgoing GP cannot continue as member of the GP and Zilla Parishads till
next election is held as directed by the Ld. Single Judge and it is submitted
that the impugned order be set aside.
[34] Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Attorney General of India has
clarified that the subsequent order issued by the State Govt. appointing
Administrative Committee and DCs as Administrator for the 6(six) Zilla
Parishads were issued in terms of the interim order dated 29.02.2024. The
provision of Section 109 of the Act is applicable in the present case as
nothing is provided to meet such situation and while exercising the power
under Section 109 and in order to avoid any discrimination, the principle
laid down under Section 22 of the Act for appointment of Administrative
Committee has been adopted while appointing Administrative Committee
under Section 109 of the Act. The learned Attorney General has further
pointed out that the interim order dated 29.02.2024 passed by this Court
is not set aside nor disturbed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated
03.04.2025 when the interim order dated 29.02.2024 was challenged by
the respondents herein. It is urged that the respondents cannot now
question the appointment of Administrative Committee of the Gram
Panchayat and Administrator for the Zilla Parishad.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 28 of 72
Written Submissions of Parties:
[35] As permitted by this Court, Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned
Attorney General of India filed written submission on behalf of State
appellants and it is reproduced below:
1. Statutory Foundation and Legislative Intent: The
Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as
the “1994 Act”) was enacted to give effect to the
constitutional mandate under Part IX of the Constitution,
ensuring democratic decentralisation and local self-governance
in rural Manipur. It provides a comprehensive framework for:
a. Constitution and functioning of Gram Panchayats and Zilla
Parishads
b. Electoral processes, tenure, and disqualification norms
c. Financial accountability, audit, and administrative
oversight.
The 1994 Act contains certain salient features of the Manipur
Panchayat Act, 1975 and goes beyond it.
2. The 1994 Act aligns with:
a. Article 243-B: Mandates the constitution of Panchayats at
the village, intermediate, and district levels.
b. Article 243-E: Fixes a five-year tenure for Panchayats.
c. Article 243-K: Vests superintendence of elections in the
State Election Commission.
3. Reliefs granted by the learned Single Judge are contrary to the
1994 Act and Constitutional Scheme: The reliefs granted by the
Ld. Single Judge are legally untenable for the following reasons:
Sl. No. Ground Legal Position
1. No foundation The WRIT Petition lacks factual and
for reliefs statutory basis under the 1994 Act. No
case has been made out for grant of
mandamus.
2. Misconstructi Section 22 is a transitory provision for
on of Section administrative intervention in
22 exceptional cases. It cannot be
construed as a permanent mechanism to
bypass elections that can be invoked at
all times. After 1994-1996, it loses its
applicability.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 29 of 72
3. Reliefs violateThe Constitution (Articles 243E, 243K)
constitutional and the 1994 Act mandate periodic
and statutory elections and fixed tenure. Reliefs that
provisions extend tenure or delay elections violate
this framework.
4. No nexus with Petitioners’ claim to continue in office is
election unrelated to the conduct or feasibility of
conduct elections. Contravention of constitutional
mandate is not permissible.
5. President’s Under Article 356, the administration is
Rule bars under the President’s control. Petitioners
election- lack locus to demand election-related
related claims reliefs during this period.
4. Upholding the 1994 Act Strengthens Democratic Governance:
The 1994 Act is a vital instrument for participatory democracy
in Manipur. Judicial intervention that dilutes its provisions
undermines:
a. The constitutional vision of elected local bodies
b. Accountability mechanisms embedded in the Act
c. The role of the State Election Commission in ensuring free
and fair elections
5. The enactment of the 1994 Act, and the subsequent 1996
Amendment thereto, will be better understood in view of the
1991 Gazette, as presented before this Hon’ble Court during
the hearing of the matter. On 16.09.1991, the names of newly
elected Pradhans and Members in respect of the Valley
development Blocks of Manipur under the 1975 Act were
notified, and the 1994 Act was enacted on 23.04.1994. The
tenure of elected members, in terms of Article 243-E, and the
original 1975 Act was to be five years, viz., till 15.09.1996.
6. The position under Section 20 of the 1975 Act lasts, statutorily
and constitutionally, for five years. Neither Article 243-E nor the
1975 Act contemplates or enables continuation beyond five
years. Section 22, sub-section (1), of the 1994 Act, to meet
contingencies that may arise after the first establishment of
Panchayats under that Act, has only provided for a one-time
application. The learned Single Judge has not considered any
of these aspects, though the Appellant submitted that Section
22 is not applicable.
7. The language of Section 22 is unambiguous. It talks about
issues that may arise in regard to the conduct of elections
following the first establishment of panchayats under the 1994
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 30 of 72
Act. The keywords are, “first establishment”. If the Legislature
had intended to enact Section 22 differently, it would have
omitted the above-said key words. Also, the Legislature would
not have enacted any provision contrary to Article 243-E by
impliedly providing for the duration of the elected membership
of a panchayat beyond the term prescribed mandatorily under
Article 243-E and enacted with equal clarity under the 1994 Act.
8. The idea of the Administrative Committee to include such
eligible members as may be considered, itself suggests that any
other principle to the contrary, namely, continuation of
members elected under the previous election, is ruled out. It is
one thing to aspire to be members of the Administrative
Committee and a completely different thing to canvas the
negation of the Administrative Committee itself.
9. The amendment carried out to Section 22 vide the 1996
Amendment Act, if understood as recorded by the learned
Single Judge, will virtually give a meaning to Section 22 itself
not contemplated by the Legislature. The substitution of the
word “cease” by the phrase “continue” was undertaken only to
tide over the problems in relation to the conduct of elections
soon after the expiry of the terms of five years of these elected
members and thus provided for a one-time resolution of such
problems. No vested right has been conferred by the law that
every elected member will have a right to continue till next
round of elections are conducted. Such a reading of the law will
defeat the very purpose of the law.
10. The Legislature found that the words “shall cease to be”
occurring in sub-section (3) of Section 22 would have actually
reduced the full term of those elected members, elected under
the 1975 Act. The omission to provide for the completion of the
full term of such members elected under the 1975 Act, was
thus, sought to be corrected. No other intent can be attributed
to the substitution o the words “cease to be” by the words
“continue to be.”
11. The intent of the Legislature becomes crystal clear from the
fact that on 20.09.1996, before the first elections to the
Panchayat could be held under the 1994 Act, the State
Legislature amended the 1994 Act by notifying the 1996
Amendment Act, thereby amending Section 22 of the 1994 Act.
It was done to enable the existing Panchayat members to
continue in office till elections to the Panchayat could be
conducted. S.22, sub-section (1), hence, is only a transitional
provision.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 31 of 72
12. Section 22 sub-section (1), hence, only remains on the statute
book to serve as a guiding light for the incumbent Government
to exercise its powers under Section 109 of the 1994 Act, viz.,
Removal of difficulties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case
of Municipal Corpn., Greater Mumbai v. Century Textiles &
Industries Ltd., (2025) 3 SCC 183, has reiterated the position
in CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57, and held as
follows:
“67. By employing a harmonious construction, the 1925 Act’s
provisions are allowed to complement rather than contradict
one another. This approach upholds the integrity of the
legislative scheme, ensures that none of its components are
undermined, and maintains a balance between the obligations
imposed on a lessee and any rights that may accrue at the end
of the lease’s tenure. These principles were reiterated by a
three-Judge Bench of this Court in Hindustan Bulk Carriers. The
relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder: (SCC pp. 73-
74, paras 14-21)“14. A construction which reduces the statute to a
futility has to be avoided. A statute or any enacting
provision therein must be so construed as to make
it effective and operative on the principle expressed
in the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat i.e. a
liberal construction should be put upon written
instruments, so as to uphold them, if possible, and
carry into effect the intention of the parties. [See
Broom’s Legal Maxims (10th Edn.), p. 361, Craies on
Statutes (7th Edn.), p. 95 and Maxwell on Statutes
(11th Edn.), p. 221.]
15. A statute is designed to be workable and the
interpretation thereof by a court should be to secure
that object unless crucial omission or clear direction
makes that end unattainable. (See Whitney v. IRC
[1926 AC 37 at p. 52 referred to in CIT v. S. Teja
Singh [(1959) 35 ITR 408] and Gursahai Saigal v.
CIT [(1963) 48 ITR (SC) 1]).
16. The courts will have to reject that construction
which will defeat the plain intention of the
legislature even though there may be some
inexactitude in the language used. (See Salmon v.
Duncombe [(1886) LR 11 AC 627 at p. 634, Curtis
v. Stovin, (1889) LR 22 QBD 513 referred to in S.
Teja Singh case [(1959) 35 ITR 408]).
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 32 of 72
17. If the choice is between two interpretations, the
narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest
purpose of the legislation, we should avoid a
construction which would reduce the legislation to
futility, and should rather accept the bolder
construction, based on the view that Parliament
would legislate only for the purpose of bringing
about an effective result. (See Nokes v. Doncaster
Amalgamated Collieries Ltd. 1940 AC 1014 referred
to in Richard James Pye v. Minister for Lands for
NSW (1954) 1 WLR 1410 (PC) .) The principles
indicated in the said cases were reiterated by this
Court in Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of India
[1992 Supp (1) SCC 594].
18. The statute must be read as a whole and one
provision of the Act should be construed with
reference to other provisions in the same Act so as
to make a consistent enactment of the whole
statute.
19. The court must ascertain the intention of the
legislature by directing its attention not merely to
the clauses to be construed but to the entire statute;
it must compare the clause with other parts of the
law and the setting in which the clause to be
interpreted occurs. (See R.S. Raghunath v. State of
Karnataka [(1992) 1 SCC 335) Such a construction
has the merit of avoiding any inconsistency or
repugnancy either within a section or between two
different sections or provisions of the same statute.
It is the duty of the court to avoid a head-on clash
between two sections of the same Act. (See Sultana
Begum v. Prem Chand Jain (1997) 1 SCC 373].)
20. Whenever it is possible to do so, it must be done
to construe the provisions which appear to conflict
so that they harmonise. It should not be lightly
assumed that Parliament had given with one hand
what it took away with the other.
21. The provisions of one section of the statute
cannot be used to defeat those of another unless it
is impossible to effect reconciliation between them.
Thus a construction that reduces one of the
provisions to a “useless lumber” or “dead letter” isW.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 33 of 72
not a harmonised construction. To harmonise is not
to destroy.””
13. It is submitted that reasoning in a judgment which does not
advert to proper and reasonable construction and
interpretation of a Statute, is no reasoning at all. Additionally,
reliance placed by the Ld. Single Judge on order dated
19.01.2023 in W.P. (C) 935 of 2022 on the subject of
Autonomous District Council, Manipur is also misplaced. The
Division Bench of the High Court of Guahati has reversed the
order passed by the Ld. Single Judge in the above said case
[Judgement in WA/353/2023 dated 15.03.2024]. Even
otherwise, a correct reading of Section 22 alone should govern
the field.
14. Prayer: It is respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court
may:
a. Decline to uphold the reliefs granted by the Ld. Single Judge
b. Reaffirm the primacy of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act,
1994, particularly Section 22, as explained above.
[36] As permitted by this Court, Mr. N. Jotendro, learned sr.
counsel filed written submission on behalf of the respondents/writ
petitioners and it is reproduced below:
1. Background: The original writ petitioners were elected
representatives whose tenure commenced from October 2017
and ended in October 2022. Despite the expiry of their term,
fresh elections were not held due to alleged ‘law and order
issues’, and the State Government, invoking Section 22 and
Section 109 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, appointed
Administrative Committees in their place. The petitioners
contended that such appointments were arbitrary, violative of
the independence of the State Election Commission, and an
infringement of the democratic mandate under Articles 14, 21,
and 243E of the Constitution.
2. Impugned Judgment: The Hon’ble Single Judge, by judgment
dated 18.04.2023, directed the State Government to allow the
elected representatives of the Gram Panchayats and Zilla
Parishads of six districts (Bishnupur, Imphal East, Imphal West,
Jiribam, Kakching, and Thoubal) to continue to function in their
respective posts until the State Election Commission issues
notification for fresh elections.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 34 of 72
That it is also pertinent to mention here that in the
said judgment and order, the learned Advocate General assured
th
before the Ld. Single Bench that the 6 General Election to
Panchayats, 2023 has been scheduled to be held on 26.6.2023
and the same is also reflected at Para No. 4 of the order dated
21/03/2023 [Page No. 191 of W.A. No. 10 of 2024].
3. Subsequent actions pursuant to interim order dated
29.02.2024 — illegal invocation of section 109 to
displace elected representatives:
Pursuant to the interim order dated 29.02.2024 passed by
the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A. No. 9 of 2024 and its
connected matters, the Deputy Commissioners of all six
districts, namely:
• Imphal East
• Imphal West
• Thoubal
• Kakching
• Bishnupur
• Jiribamissued uniform notices dated 01.03.2024 inviting applications
from interested persons for appointment as members of
Administrative Committees for each Gram Panchayat and
Zilla Parishad in their respective jurisdictions. These notices:
• Purportedly invoke the residuary powers under
Section 109 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act,
1994, and
• Explicitly stated that the action was taken in
compliance with the interim order dated
29.02.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court.
Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioners of all six districts
issued orders appointing Administrative Committees for Zilla
Parishads and Gram Panchayats as follows:
• Imphal East – Order dated 07.03.2024
• Thoubal – Order dated 08.03.2024
• Imphal West – Order dated 08.04.2024
• Bishnupur – Order dated 08.04.2024
• (Similar orders were issued in other districts namely
Kakching & Jiribam as well)W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 35 of 72
These Administrative Committees have continued to
function for more than one year, with no election process
initiated, and in complete derogation of the statutory and
constitutional framework.
It is most respectfully submitted that the Administrative
Committee members, appointed pursuant to the interim order
dated 29.02.2024, have falsely updated their profiles on the
e-GramSwaraj Portal of the Ministry of Panchayati Raj,
Government of India, by projecting themselves as elected
representatives for the election term from 1st April, 2023
to 31st March, 2028. This act of unauthorized self-
representation is patently fraudulent and misleading,
amounting to an attempt to befool the Union Ministry and
general Public to create a false impression of democratic
legitimacy where none exists.
Such conduct not only violates the transparency principles
enshrined under the Panchayati Raj framework and Articles
243C and 243E of the Constitution of India but also vitiates
the integrity of official government portals that are
designed to reflect actual electoral outcomes. This malpractice
further reinforces the untenability of continuing with the
said Committees, and warrants urgent judicial intervention to
restore constitutionally mandated representative
governance through duly elected Panchayats.
4. Improper invocation of section 109 — contrary to
constitutional mandateIt is respectfully submitted that:
• Section 109 is a residuary enabling provision that
cannot override or dilute the specific constitutional
and statutory guarantees under Articles 243E of
the constitution of India and Sections 22(5) of
the Manipur Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 1996.
• The said provision does not authorize the removal
or substitution of duly elected bodies in the
absence of lawful dissolution or valid expiry followed
by timely elections.
• Even assuming temporary measures are permissible,
the maximum period allowed under Section
22(5) for such interim arrangement is six months,
which has already lapsed, yet no steps have been
initiated for fresh elections till date.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 36 of 72
5. Contravention of section 22 of the Manipur Panchayati
Raj Act, 1994:
• Section 22(5) of the Act states that:
“In the event of expiry of the term of the Gram Panchayat,
the prescribed authority shall appoint an Administrative
Committee for a period not exceeding six months, or
until the new Panchayat is constituted, whichever is
earlier.”
• This clearly limits the life of any Administrative
Committee to a maximum of six months, and only as
a stop-gap arrangement pending fresh elections.
• However, the present Committees have functioned for
over a year, with no justification for the prolonged
failure to conduct elections, thereby violating both:
• The constitutional mandate under Article
243E, and• The statutory ceiling under Section 22(5) of
the Manipur Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act,
1996.
6. Statutory and constitutional structure of panchayati raj
institutions – section 17 & section 22 must be
harmoniously construed:-
It is submitted that Section 17 of the Manipur
Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, as amended by the Manipur
Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 1996, provides a
statutory formula for the composition of Gram
Panchayats. The said Section mandates that a Gram Panchayat
shall consist of a Pradhan and one elected member for
every 600 population or part thereof of the Panchayat area,
the previous figure of 350 having been amended to 600 by the
1996 amendment. For example, in a Gram Panchayat there
maybe 15 members.
Section 22(1)(a) and (b) gives power to the Deputy
Commissioner to appoint an Administrative Committee, the
number of such persons being equal to the number of members
determined under section 17.
Further, the amendment to Section 22(3) in 1996
substituted the word “cease” with “continue”, indicatingW.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 37 of 72
legislative intent to retain the elected body until fresh elections
are conducted.
If the Administrative Committee members as
determined by section 17 is appointed and if the elected
members of the Gram Panchayat is continued to be the members
of the Gram Panchayat, the number of members of the Gram
Panchayat after the appointment of the Administrative
Committee shall exceed the number of members determined
under section 17. This is not the intention of the Law framers.
Apparently, there seems to be certain inconsistencies
between the provision of section 17 and 22 of the
amended Act of 1996. However on a harmonious reading
of these sections, one will find that there is none.
7. The appointment of Administrative Committees in the
place of elected bodies by the Deputy Commissioners in
purported exercise of Section 109, in consequence of the
interim order dated 29/02/2024, violates the constitutional
mandate under Articles 243E and 243C and defeats the
express statutory limitations under Sections 17 and 22.
The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in Uttar
Dhemajigaon Gaon Panchayat & Ors. vs. State of Assam
& Ors., reported in 2007 (3) GLT 899, held that:
“Once a Panchayat is elected for a fixed
tenure as provided by law, its removal or
supersession cannot be done except in
strict compliance with the procedure
prescribed under the law. Administrative
exigencies or delays in election cannot
justify the appointment of alternative
bodies which are not envisaged under the
Constitution or the Act.”
This principle squarely applies to the present case,
where despite the clear mandate of the judgment dated
18/04/2023 passed in W.P.(C) Nos. 205, 239, and 266 of 2023
directing that elected members shall continue until elections are
conducted, the State has misused the interim liberty
granted by the Hon’ble Division Bench to issue notices dated
01/03/2024 inviting applications for Administrative
Committees, thereby circumventing the representative
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 38 of 72
framework and diluting the statutory cap on membership under
Section 17.
The appointment of Administrative Committees not
only distorts the representative ratio envisaged under
Section 17 (as based on a fixed 1:600 population formula), but
also results in an arbitrary increase or reshuffling of
powers, which is impermissible either under the Act or the
Constitution
8. Grounds for Dismissal of Appeals:
i. Constitutional Mandate under Article 243E:
The Constitution mandates timely elections and a maximum
5-year tenure for Panchayats. While the tenure ended, the
delay in elections is solely attributable to the State
Government’s failure to act despite the Election Commission
having completed electoral roll preparation in April 2023.
ii. Interim Order of Division Bench Lacks Finality:
The interim order dated 29.02.2024 passed in the writ
appeals does not decide the matter on merits. Furthermore,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 03.04.2025 in
Civil Appeal Nos. 5020-5025 of 2025, has refrained from
expressing any opinion and instead remitted the matter back
to the High Court for adjudication on merits.
iii. Judicial Precedents Support the Respondents’ Case:
a) Uttar Dhemajigaon Panchayat & Ors. vs. State
of Assam & Ors., 2007 (3) GLT 899:
“Any attempt to replace elected representatives with
appointed committees in the absence of timely
elections violates Article 243E(3) and is unsustainable.”
b) Kishansing Tomar vs. Municipal Corporation
of Ahmedabad, (2006) 8 SCC 352:
“It is the constitutional obligation of the State Election
Commission to conduct elections before the expiry of
the term of the local body. Delay cannot justify
appointing administrators.”
c) A.C. Jose vs. Sivan Pillai, (1984) 2 SCC 656:
“Elections are part of the basic democratic structure,
and executive authorities cannot override this
requirement by inaction.”
iv. Applicability of the principle laid down in 2007 (3)
GLT 899 – elected panchayats cannot be displaced
without due process:
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 39 of 72
The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court
in the case of Uttar Dhemajigaon Panchayat and Ors. –
vs – State of Assam and Ors., reported in 2007 (3) GLT
899, squarely applies to the facts of the present case and
strongly supports the case of the respondents/writ
petitioners.
In the said decision, the Hon’ble Court held as follows:
14. From the above discussion and also in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of writ petitions wherein the
State-respondents and the State Election Commission
have admitted their failure to perform their duties to carry
out the mandate of the Constitution of India discussed
above, these writ petitions are disposed of with the
following directions-
(a) The State Election Commission as contemplated under
Article 243K of the Constitution of India and the Section
114 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 is to function
independently of the State Government in the matter of
their power of superintendence, direction and control and
conduct of all the election to all the Gaon Panchayats,
Anchalik Panchayats and Zilla Parishads.
(b) The State Election Commission has to fix the date for
holding election to all the Gaon Panchayats, Anchalik
Panchayats and Zilla Parishads.
(c) The State respondents are to fulfill the requirements
of the State Election Commission as maybe necessary for
the discharge of the functions of the State Election
Commission for holding election to all Gaon Panchayats,
Anchalik Panchayats and Zilla Parishads.
(d) The Gaon Panchayat, Anchalik Panchayat and Zilla
Parishad whose terms had expired because of the failure
on the part of the State respondents and the State Election
Commission to fulfill the mandates of the Constitution to
hold the election before the expiry of their term shall be
allowed to function till the constitution of the new Gaon
Panchayats, Anchalik Panchayats and Zilla Parishads after
completion of the election but they are not allowed to take
any major policy decision, make any expenditure from the
funds other than the payment of salaries of the staffs and
routine function of the office without the permission of
this Court.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 40 of 72
(e) All the elections to the Gaon Panchayats, Anchalik
Panchayats and Zilla Parishads shall be completed on or
before 31.10.2007.
For compliance with the above directions, this Court
is of the considered view that the impugned notice dated
29.3.2007 is necessary to be set aside. Accordingly, the
impugned notification is quashed and set aside. Parties
are to bear their own cost.”
It was further emphasized that substituting elected
bodies with Administrative Committees without
lawful dissolution or expiry followed by due election
process is unconstitutional and violative of Article
243E.
In the present case, the State failed to conduct
elections within the mandated period, and instead,
appointed Administrative Committees based on an
interim order, thereby displacing duly elected
representatives. This action mirrors the illegality
deprecated in the above-cited judgment and hence, the
ratio therein squarely applies.
Accordingly, relying on the principle laid down in
the 2007 GLT 899 judgment, the present writ appeals
filed by the State authorities deserve to be dismissed,
and the impugned judgment dated 18.04.2023
affirming the right of the elected bodies to continue until
regular elections are held must be upheld.
v. State Cannot Benefit from Its Own Lapse
The State failed to conduct elections in time. It cannot
now seek to supersede democratically elected bodies
on the pretext of its own delay or logistical challenges.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that
failure by the State cannot result in denial of rights
guaranteed under the Constitution, particularly the right
to participate in local self-governance.
9. Conclusion
• The Hon’ble Single Judge has rightly applied the law and
constitutional principles in the judgment dated 18/04/2023.
The writ appeals are devoid of merit and liable to be
dismissed.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 41 of 72
• The writ appeals are a belated attempt to justify the
unconstitutional continuation of unelected administrative
bodies in place of elected Panchayati Raj Institutions. The
appeals suffer from lack of merit, and the impugned
judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge is consistent with
constitutional mandates, statutory interpretation, and
established judicial precedent. In view of the same, W.A. Nos.
9, 10, and 11 of 2024 are liable to be dismissed with costs.
Accordingly, the elected representatives of the 5th Panchayats
and Zilla Parishads, 2017 are entitled to continue as per
Judgment and Order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the Hon’ble
Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 266 of 2023; W.P.(C) No. 205 of
2023; and W.P.(C) No. 239 of 2023.
• The appeals, if allowed, would result in restoring
unconstitutional governance by unelected bodies,
defeating the very purpose of Part IX of the Constitution.
PRAYER
In view of the above submissions, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
1. Dismiss the present Writ Appeals, being W.A. Nos. 9, 10 &
11 of 2024 and allowed the elected representatives of the 5th
Panchayats and Zilla Parishads, 2017 till the election
notification is issued;
2. Uphold the judgment and order dated 18/04/2023 passed in
W.P.(C) Nos. 205, 239 & 266 of 2023;
3. Direct the State Government and State Election Commission
to take immediate steps to conduct elections to the
Panchayati Raj Institutions;
4. Pass any such order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
[37] As permitted by this Court, Mr. S. Biswajit, learned sr. counsel has
filed written submission on behalf of intervenors and it is reproduced
below:
1. The intervenors herein were appointed as Members of the
Administrative Committee of Imphal West District on
08.03.2024 under section 109 of the MPR Act, 1994 after due
administrative approval of the State Government.
It is pertinent to mention here that since the terms of
the previous Panchayat cannot be extended beyond 5 years
as mandated by the Article 243 E of the Constitution of India
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 42 of 72
and because of the various reasons which are not under the
control of the State Government, the Members of the
Administrative Committee were appointed under the Removal
of Difficulties as per section 109 of the MPR Act, 1994 so as
to enable to remove the difficulties arises in giving effect to
the provisions of the Act of 1994.
2. In the said order dated 08.03.2024, it is clearly mentioned
that the term of the Administrative Committee for both Gram
Panchayats and Zila Parishad will be for a period till the
notification of the 6th General Panchayat Election is issued by
the State Election Commission, Manipur.
Since, their appointment as Members of the
Administrative Committee, the Intervenors are implementing
various schemes under the MGNREGA and others projects for
the development and welfare of their respective Gram
Panchayats and Zila Parishads. It is pertinent to mention here
that many of the schemes and projects are still undergoing.
3. The said order dated 08.03.2024 was issued in compliance of
the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court
in WA No.9 of 2024 and for the purpose of appointment of the
Administrative Committee, a Screening Committee was
constituted and, on its recommendation, the DC of the
concerned Districts under section 109 of the MPR Act, 1994
notified the names of the members of the Administrative
Committees.
It is humbly submitted that the said Selection
Committee in its proceedings held on 6-03-2024 and 07-03-
2024 decided to recommend the names of the Intervenors
herein and others by considering the most active persons for
carrying out the duties of Ward Members of Gram Panchayats
and Zilla Parishads and in this regard, the response to the local
leaders and clubs regarding their social activities in the locality
were also assessed.
4. It is respectfully submitted that the newly appointed members
of the Administrative Committee include the former Members
of the Gram Panchayats and Zila Parishads, including those
persons who are eligible to be appointed as Members of Gram
Sabha and Gram Panchayat as per section 3 (1) and Section
13(3) of the MPR Act, 1994. As explained above in paragraph
No.3, the appointment was done considering the most
suitable person, including former elected Members, who are
considered to be most active persons for carrying out duties
of ward member of GP and ZP and considering and assessing
the response of the local leaders and clubs regarding their
social activities in the locality. Further, it is also pertinent to
mention here that amongst the recommended list, the persons
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 43 of 72
who had done excellent in carrying out local development
works were sorted out and Committee recommended them to
the post of Chairpersons of GP and ZP.
It is further respectfully submitted that the qualified
person mentioned in section 22(1) (b) (i) of the Act, includes
all the persons whose names are included in the electoral roll
referred to section 15 within the area of Gram Sabha and as
such, the contention of the Respondent herein/ writ petitioner
therein that they (only former elected members) are
exclusively qualified/eligible to be considered for appointment
as members of Administrative Committee is not sustainable in
the eye of law. As per Section 3 (2) of the Act, a person will
be disqualified for being a Member of Gram Sabha, if he is not
a citizen of India, or, he is of unsound mind and stands so
declared by a Competent Court or he is for the time being
disqualified from voting under the provision of any law relating
to corrupt practices and other offences in connection with
election to state legislature.
5. That it is also pertinent to mention here that as mandated by
Article 243-F of the Constitution of India, a person shall be
disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a Member of
a Panchayat- (a) if he is so disqualified by or under any law
for the time being in force for the purposes of elections to the
legislature of the State concerned: provided that no person
shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than 25 years
of age, if he has attained the age of 25 years, (b) if he is so
disqualified by or under any law made by the legislature of the
State.
6. The notification of the State Government appointing the
intervenors as Members of the Administrative Committee has
created a legal right accrued to them as well as other Members
of the Administrative Committees. It is further respectfully
submitted that any outcome of the present Writ Appeal may
adversely affect the interest of the present Intervenors. It is
respectfully submitted that since the former Members of ZP
and GP are no longer allowed to extend their terms and the
new Members of the Administrative Committee had already
been appointed and they are performing their duties to fulfil
the aims and objectives of various schemes of Government of
India, the continuance of the present Members of the
Administrative Committee till the next election will be justified
for smooth functioning of the Gram Panchayats and Zila
Parishads and in the larger interest of the development of the
respective Rural areas.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that many of the schemes and
projects under MGNREGS are still undergoing in full swing and
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 44 of 72
dismissing the present writ appeal filed by the State will halt
and delay all the time bound projects which are being
implemented by the Intervenors and other Administrative
Committee Members which will ultimately result in depriving
the populace of the concerned GP and ZP of development and
job guarantee.
POINTS OF LAW:
I. As mandate by the provisions of Article 243 E of the
Constitution of India, the term of the panchayat is only
for 5 years and the same cannot be extended. Once, the
term is over, the Committee of Gram Panchayat and Zila
Parishad become “functus officio” and the question of
extending their terms does not arise at all once they have
demitted their office due to the expiry of their terms.
Further, when the Constitution of India itself mandates
the durations of panchayat in such categorical terms, any
direction to extend such term would be in violation of the
constitution.
It is respectfully submitted that the delay in
holding the election of Panchayat by the state
government cannot be the ground to accrued a right
upon the Respondents to extend their already dissolved
panchayats. In such case the only remedy available is
holding of the panchayat election as decided by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Mahajan Versus
State of MP.reported in (2022) 12 SCC 770 (para
12).
II. A notification bearing No.2/23/96-Leg/L dated
20.09.1996 was issued by the Law & Legislative
Department, Govt. of Manipur amending the section 22
of the MPR Act, 1994. In the said amendment, the
substitution of the word “cease” by the word
“continue” in sub-section 3 is contrary to the provision
of Article 243-E of the Constitution of India for the reason
that the said amendment can be misinterpreted as if the
former elected Members are allowed to remain in office
even after the expiry of 5 years term and the said
amendment of 1996 will eventually be misused by the
former elected Members to remain in office until fresh
elections were held. Even though it is completely
unconstitutional as well as the against the democratic
spirit and any state Act cannot be inconsistent with the
mandate of the Constitution of India and any statute
under the state Act which is inconsistent with the Central
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 45 of 72
Act or mandate of the Constitution of India is null and
void and it is non-est in the eye of law.
However, it is further submitted that the
amendment of 1996 was done to save the term of the
Election of 1991 held under the provision of 1994 Act as
the subsequent election could not be to held before the
expiry of term. And it does give any power to continue to
the elected members of the subsequent elections after
the expiry of their term.
III. Section 22 of the MPR Act, 1994 provides that when
elections to a Gram Panchayat cannot be conducted or
delayed, the DC may by notification appoint an
Administrative Committee to discharge the functions of
the Gram Panchayat for the period not exceeding six
months.
It is pertinent to mention here that a Writ
Petition (C) No. 524 of 2025 has been filed in this
Hon’ble High Court challenging the vires of the
Amendment Act of 1996 and the same is still pending for
adjudication.
IV. Section 109 of MPR Act, 1994 empowers the State to do
anything which appears to be necessary to remove any
difficulty. It is pertinent to mention here that because of
various reasons, the election of the General Panchayat
Election cannot be conducted and in the interest of public
and developments of various Gram Panchayats and Zila
Parishads, the State government issued the orders
appointing the Members of the Administrative Committee
in exercise of the power under section 109 of MPR Act,
1994, that also after the liberty was given by the Division
Bench of this Hon’ble Court.
V. Section 22 of the MPR Act, 1994 is applicable only in case
of election which could not be constituted immediately
after establishment of the Gram Panchayat. Since, the
present case is of non-holding of 6th Gram Panchayat
Election, Section 22 cannot be enforced in the present
case.
VI. As an interim arrangement the present Members of the
Administrative Committee including the intervenors were
appointed by the government till the holding of 6th
General Panchayat Election in exercise of the power
under section 109 of the MPR Act, 1994. This
appointment is mainly for completing various
programmes and schemes which were taken up at the
Panchayat levels and also for assigning new schemes and
projects which are all time bound projects. As such, the
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 46 of 72
government authorities appointed the present Members
of the Administrative Committee including the
intervenors because of the said requirements for
implementing various time bound schemes and projects.
VII. That the present members of Administrative Committee
of the ZP and GP were appointed as per the liberty given
by this Hon’ble Court during the pendency of the present
Writ Appeal and subsequent events of appointing the
present intervenors as well as the other Members of the
Administrative Committee under Section 109 of the MPR
Act, 1994 was done after the disposal of the writ petition
filed by the present Respondents herein. It is to
respectfully submit that the issue involved in the writ
petition and the present Writ Appeal is not the issue of
appointing the Members of Administrative Committee
under Section 109 of the MPR Act but the issue involved
in the writ petition and the present writ appeal is whether
the former elected Members can continue as members of
Administrative Committee by enjoying the powers and
duties of Gram Panchayat after the expiry of five years
term till the next election is held. Moreover, it is pertinent
to mention herein that it is not the pleaded case of the
writ petitioner (respondents herein) that the
appointment of the present Members of the
Administrative Committee under section 109 of the MPR
Act should be quashed as it is against the spirit of Section
22 of the MPR Act of 1994.
VIII. That it is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court
in a catena of its decision has held that Court/parties
cannot go beyond the pleadings. It is also respectfully
submitted that the judgment reported in “2007 (3) GLT
899 Uttar Dhemaji Versus State of Assam” of the Hon’ble
Gauhati High Court relied upon by the Respondents
(herein ) where the Hon’ble Court directed the dissolved
Gram Panchayat and Zila Parishad be allowed to continue
till the constitution of a new body.
The above cited case of the Respondents
(herein) cannot be considered by this Hon’ble Appellate
Court as the same High Court in the case of Joynab Bibi
and 17 Ors. versus Union of India and Ors. along
with other connected cases decided on
22.03.2024 (at para 25) has held that the said
judgment is per incurium as violation of the provisions of
Article 243 E (1) of the Constitution of India by relying
many other cases of the same High Court and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. Further it is respectfully submitted that
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 47 of 72
the said judgment relied upon by the Respondent is a
single bench judgment and it has no binding to the
Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court.
IX. Since the directions given in the impugned judgment of
the Ld. Single Judge which was passed by relying upon
certain judgments of this Hon’ble Court cannot survive
now because of subsequent developments and hence,
directions allowing the former elected members to
continue till the next election does not survive.
X. In the event of this Hon’ble Court decides that the former
elected members are not allowed to hold or continue with
their earlier posts as members of Gram Panchayats and
Zila Parishads till the next election is held, then the next
issue for determination is when will the election be held
and the next issue is who will be the Members of
Administrative Committee till then. In this context, the
submissions made in the earlier paragraphs in the written
submission justifying the continuance of the Members of
the present Administrative Committee may be considered
in the interest of Justice.
[38] This Court have perused the material on record, considered
the submissions made at the bar and the relevant provisions of law in this
regard. It will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of the
law i.e. Article 243E of the Constitution, Sections 17, 20, 22, 92 & 109 of
the MPR Act, 1994 and Section 6 of the MPR (Amendment) Act, 1996 and
the same is reproduced below:
“Article 243E. Duration of Panchayats, etc.- (1) Every
Panchayat, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the
time being in force, shall continue for five years from the
date appointed for its first meeting and no longer.
(2) No amendments of any law for the time being in force
shall have the effect of causing dissolution of a Panchayat at
any level, which is functioning immediately before such
amendment, till the expiration of its duration specified in
clause (1)
(3) An election to constitute a Panchayat shall be completed-
(a) before the expiry of its duration specified in
clause(1);
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 48 of 72
(b) before the expiration of a period of six months
from the date of its dissolution;
Provided that where the remainder of the period
for which the dissolved Panchayat would have
continued is less than six months, it shall not be
necessary to hold any election under this clause for
constituting the panchayat for such period.
(4) A Panchayat constituted upon the dissolution of a
Panchayat before the expiration of its duration shall continue
only for the remainder of the period for which the dissolved
Panchayat would have continued under clause (1) had it not
been so dissolved.
The Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
Section 17. A Gram Panchayat shall consist of the Pradhan
and such number of directly elected members as may be
notified from time to time by the State Government and one
member for every 350 population or part thereof of the
Panchayat area shall be elected as a member of such
Panchayat.
Section 20. Term of the Gram Panchayats.–(1) Every Gram
Panchayat shall continue for a term of five years from the
date appointed for its first meeting and no longer:
Provided that a Gram Panchayat which is functioning
immediately before the commencement of this Act shall
continue till the expiration of its duration.
(2) The election to constitute a Gram Panchayat shall
be completed–
a) before the expiration of its duration specified in
sub-section (1); and
(b) in case of dissolution, before the expiration of a
period of six months from the date of dissolution:
Provided that where the remainder of the period for
which the dissolved Gram Panchayat would have continued
is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any
election under this clause for constituting the Gram
Panchayat for such period.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 49 of 72
(3) A Gram Panchayat constituted upon the
dissolution of a Gram Panchayat before the expiration of its
duration, shall continue only for the remainder of the period
for which the dissolved Gram Panchayat would have
continued under sub-section (1) had it not been so dissolved.
Section 22. Appointment of an Administrative Committee or
Administrator on failure to elect members of Gram Panchayat
and in other cases.– (1) (a) If the Deputy Commissioner is
satisfied that a Gram Panchayat for a village or group of
villages immediately after the establishment of such Gram
Panchayat cannot be constituted by reason of–
(i) any difficulty in holding an election of the members of
the Gram Panchayat; or
(ii) failure to elect such members at two successive
elections held under section 17; or
(iii) any other sufficient reason whatsoever; or
(b) If at any general election to a Gram Panchayat, no
member is elected or less than two-third of the total
number of members are elected, the Deputy
Commissioner shall, by notification either,–
(i) appoint an Administrative Committee consisting of
persons qualified to be elected, the number of such
persons being equal to the number of members
determined under section 17; or
(ii) appoint an Administrator.
(2) The members of the Administrative Committee or the
Administrator shall hold office for such period not
exceeding six months as the Deputy Commissioner may
specify in the notification under sub-section (1).
(3) On the appointment of an Administrative Committee
or an Administrator under sub-section (1), the persons, if
any, chosen as members of the Gram Panchayat before
such appointment shall cease to be members of the Gram
Panchayat and all the powers and duties of the Gram
Panchayat shall be exercised and performed by such
Administrative Committee or Administrator, as the case
may be.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 50 of 72
(4) The Administrative Committee or Administrator shall
be deemed to be a duly constituted Gram Panchayat for
the purpose of this Act, notwithstanding anything
contained in the foregoing provisions: Provided that if
at any time after the appointment of the Administrative
Committee or the Administrator under sub-section (1), the
Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that there is no difficulty
in duly constituting the Gram Panchayat by election of
members, the Deputy Commissioner, may,
notwithstanding that the term of office for which the
members of the Administrative Committee or the
Administrator had been appointed has not expired, direct
by notification that the members of the Administrative
Committee or the Administrator, as the case may be, shall
cease to hold office with effect from such date as may be
specified in such notification.
92. (1) Whenever, –
(a) any general election to a Zilla Parishad under this Act or
any proceedings consequent thereon has been stayed by an
order of a competent court or authority; or
(b) all the member or more than two thirds of the members
of a Zilla Parishad have resigned, the Government shall by
notification in the Official Gazette appoint an Administrator
for such period as may be specified in the notification and
may, by like notification, curtail or extend the period of such
appointment, so however, that the total period of such
appointment shall not exceed six months.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, on the
appoint- ment of an Administrator under sub-section (1) the
Zilla Parishad and the Committees thereof and the
Adhyaksha or Up-Adhyaksha of such Zilla Parishad charged
with carrying out the provisions of this Act, or any other law,
shall cease to exercise any powers and perform and
discharge any duties or functions conferred or imposed on
them by or under this Act or any other law and all such
powers shall be exercised and all such duties and functions
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 51 of 72
shall be performed and discharged by the Administrator
during the period of such appointment.
109. Removal of difficulties.– If any difficulty arises in
giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Government,
may by order, published in the Official Gazette as the
occasion may require, do anything which appears to it to be
necessary to remove the difficulty.
The Manipur Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 1996
6. Amendment of Section 22:-
In section 22 of the Act:-
(a) sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall
be deleted.
(b) In sub-section (2), the words “or an Administrator”
shall be deleted.
(c) In sub-section (3), for the words “cease”, the word
“continue shall be substituted and the words” or an
administrator” and “or Administrator, as the case may
be” shall be deleted.
(d) In sub-section (4) the words “or Administrator”, “or
the Administrator” and “or the Administrator, as the
case may be” shall be deleted.
(e) after sub-section (4), the following sub-section (5)
shall be inserted, namely:-
“(5) Not withstanding anything contained in the Act,
if the State Government is satisfied that the first
elections to Gram Panchayats after the commencement
of this Act can not be held, the State Government may
appoint Administrative Committees to exercise the
powers and to perform the duties and functions of the
Gram Panchayat for a period not exceeding six months.
[39] From the above provisions of the law, it is clear that the
tenure of a Panchayat is 5(five) years from the day of its first sitting in
terms of the mandatory provision of Section 243E of the Constitution and
for any Panchayat prior to the enforcement of the MPR Act, 1994, its
tenure of 5(five) years from the day of its first sitting will also be protected.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 52 of 72
Section 20 of the MPR Act, 1994 also provides the terms of Panchayat as
5(five) years in consonance with the provision of Article 243E of the
Constitution and the election of Gram Panchayat shall be completed before
the expiration of its term. Section 22 is in exception to the provision of
Article 243E of the Constitution and Section 20 of the MPR Act, 1994
where, a special provision is inserted in case the election of the Panchayat
could not be held due to any reasons. Section 22(1)(b) empowers the
Deputy Commissioner to appoint ‘Administrative Committee’ consisting of
members qualified to be elected as a member of Panchayat and equal to
the number of members such Gram Panchayat under Section 17, not
exceeding a period of 6(six) months to exercise and perform the power
and duty of the Gram Panchayat. Section 22(3) provides that upon the
appointment of Administrative Committee or Administrator under Sub-
section 1, the elected members of the Gram Panchayat shall ‘cease’ to be
member of the Panchayat. By the MPR (Amendment) Act, 1996 to the MPR
Act, 1994, Section 22(3) has been amended by deleting the word
“Administrator” from Section 22 and by replacing the word ‘cease’ in Sub-
section (3) of Section 22 with the word ‘continue’. The State Govt. by
reading the provision of amended Section 22(3) read with Section 109 of
the MPR Act, 1994 and upon the direction of the Ld. Single Judge in the
batch of writ petitions mentioned above, used to issue various
notifications/orders appointing the Administrative Committee beyond the
period of 6(six) months exceeding the limit of 6 months as provided under
Section 22(2) of the MPR Act, 1994 and till election are held.
[40] By the amendment of MPR (Amendment) Act, 1996 in
Section 22(3) of the MPR Act, 1994, the Manipur Legislative Assembly (in
short MLA) introduced an amendment allowing the elected members of
the Panchayat to continue even after expiry of the term of Panchayat
without any time limit. This has been interpreted by the Learned Single
Judge in the batch of writ petitions that the term of the Panchayat can be
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 53 of 72
extended beyond the 5(five) years, if the election could not be held before
the expiration of the term. Thereafter, State Govt. used to issue
orders/notifications appointing Administrative Committee for an indefinite
period till election are held. It is implied that the amendment introduces a
new provision which extends the tenure of a Panchayat till election are
held, in spite of the mandatory provision of Article 243E of the Constitution
and Section 20 of the MPR Act, 1994 which fix the term of the Panchayat
not exceeding a period of 5(five) years from the date of its first sitting. In
other words, the effect of the amendment of Section 22(3) by the MPR
(Amendment) Act, 1996 amounts to extending the term of the
Panchayat/Administrative Committee for an indefinite period in violation of
the stipulation under Article 243E of the Constitution and Sections 20 and
22(2) of the Act.
[41] It will be relevant to point out that the validity of Section
22(3) of the MPR Act, 1994 as amended in 1996, is challenged in WP(C)
No. 524 of 2025 to the effect of replacing the word ‘cease’ by word
‘continue’ thereby impliedly extending the tenure of the Panchayat beyond
5(five) years. This view was adopted by the Ld. Single Judge in the batch
of writ petitions which are in appeal before us. Vide judgment and order
dated 29.02.2025, this Court (same Bench) disposed of the writ petition
by holding that the amendment in Section 22(3) of the MPR Act, 1994 by
amendment Act of 1996, replacing the word ‘cease’ with ‘continue’ is ultra
vires and the original word ‘cease’ has been retained in Section 22(3) so
that the term of the Panchayat cannot be extended beyond the tenure of
5 (five) years as fixed by Article 243E of the Constitution as well as Section
20 of the MPR Act, 1994. Since on the date the appeals were reserved for
order, i.e., on 01.08.2025, the amendment in Section 22(3) of replacing
the word ‘cease’ with ‘continue’ had not been held ultra vires the
Constitution and the present appeals were heard on the basis of the
amended Section 22(3) of the Act, we are not considering the effect of
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 54 of 72
judgment dated 29.08.2025 passed by the same Bench in WP(C) No. 524
of 2025 whereby, the word ‘continue’ introduced by the MPR (Amendment)
Act, 1996 was held ultra vires the provision of Article 243E of the
Constitution and Section 20 of the Act and restored the original word
‘cease’. We are deciding the present appeals in terms of the amended
provision of Section 22 (3) of the Act as introduced by MPR (Amendment)
Act, 1996.
GENESIS OF ORDERS EXTENDING TENURE OF LOCAL BODIES
[42] Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to trace the
genesis of the various orders passed by different Benches of this Court
directing the State to extend the tenure of the local bodies beyond their
tenure till elections are notified.
[43] First of such instance was the common judgment and order
dated 02.03.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in a batch of writ
petitions being, WP(C) Nos. 613 of 2020, 645 of 2020 & 647 of 2020,
where State Government was directed to take opinion of the Hill Areas
Committee, Manipur Legislative Assembly as to whether the term of the
Autonomous District Council (in short, ADC) should be extended or not
after the expiry of its tenure till the completion of the election and to pass
appropriate order upon receipt of such opinion. Till then, the tenure of the
ADC was extended till the completion of next election. The common
judgment and order dated 02.03.2021 has been carried by the State
Government to the Division Bench as writ appeals being WA Nos. 18 of
2021, 19 of 2021 & 22 of 2021.
[44] During the pendency of these writ appeals, i.e., WA Nos. 18
of 2021, 19 of 2021 & 22 of 2021 and relying on the direction of extending
the tenure of the ADC till the completion of election, another learned Single
Judge of this Court passed a common judgment & order dated 19.01.2023
in writ petitions being WP(C) Nos. 935 of 2022, 632 of 2022, 633 of 2022
and 704 of 2022 that the tenure of the Urban Local Bodies and
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 55 of 72
Autonomous District Councils be extended till the completion of the
election.
[45] In another writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No. 288 of 2023
appointment of an elected member as caretaker Chairman of ADC, Ukhrul
after expiry of the tenure was challenged by the Vice Chairman of outgoing
Council. Vide order dated 08.08.2023, leaned Single Judge dismissed the
writ petition holding that the outgoing Vice Chairman of ADC has no right
to be appointed as a caretaker Chairman of ADC and upheld appointment
of private respondent as a caretaker Chairman. Due to non-availability of
appropriate Bench in High Court of Manipur, Hon’ble Supreme Court
permitted the appeal to be filed before Gauhati High Court. Accordingly,
writ appeal being WA No. 353 of 2023 was filed before the Gauhati High
Court. Vide judgement & order dated 15.03.2024, a Division Bench of
Gauhati High Court held that elected members of the ADC could not be
appointed as caretaker Chairperson after the expiry of the term of the
ADC, but State Government has power to appoint Administrator in terms
of Section 47 of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971 to
exercise all the powers and to perform the duties of the ADC. In the
process, the appointment of the respondent No.4 as caretaker Chairman
of ADC, Ukhrul was also set aside while dismissing the claim of the Vice
Chairman to be appointed as caretaker Chairman of ADC, Ukhrul. The State
Government and State Election Commission were directed to conduct
elections of the Autonomous District Councils in Manipur by observing all
the formalities as expeditiously as possible.
[46] Vide order dated 03.03.2025 in PIL No. 19 of 2024, a Division
Bench of this Court, relying on the decision of Gauhati High Court in WA
No. 353 of 2023, acknowledged the power of the State Government to
appoint Administrator to exercise the powers and functions of the ADCs
whose term have already been expired and directed to conduct elections
to the ADCs within six months. In pursuance to the direction dated
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 56 of 72
03.03.2025, the State Government appointed the Deputy Commissioners
of the 6 hill districts as Administrators for the ADCs of the respective
districts.
[47] In view of the judgment and order dated 15.03.2024 passed
by the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in WA No. 353 of 2023, writ
appeals being WA Nos. 18 of 2021, 19 of 2021 & 22 of 2021 were closed
vide order dated 04.03.2025.
[48] In the present batch of writ petitions being challenged
herein, learned Single Judge relied on the above-mentioned judgments for
justifying the extension of the tenure of the local bodies beyond the
stipulated period of 5 (five) years. It may be noted that the statutes are
silent on the power of extension of tenure of the local bodies, except for
proviso to Section 13(1) of the Act of 1971 where the tenure of ADC can
be extended for a maximum period of one year in order to avoid
administrative difficulties. The decision of Gauhati High Court reiterated
that there cannot be further extension beyond this period. As on today,
the earlier directions of various learned Single Judges for extending the
tenure of the local bodies beyond the stipulated tenure and tilee
completion of the election, is no longer a good law.
Question No. I. Tenure of the Panchayat :
[49] From the bare perusal of Article 243E of the Constitution of
India, it is clear that election to the Panchayat shall be completed before
expiry of its duration specified therein and the duration of Panchayat will
be 5 years from the date of appointment of its first meeting and no longer.
Further, Section 20(1) of the MPR Act, 1994 prescribes that the duration
of every GP will be 5 years from the date of its first meeting and no longer.
The provision of Section 20 of the MPR Act, 1994 is in consonance with
the mandate of Article 243E of the Constitution of India which provides
that the tenure of the Panchayat shall be 5 years and under no
circumstance the same can be extended. Hon’ble Supreme Court in theW.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 57 of 72
case of Kishansing Tomar vs. Municipal Corporation of
Ahmedabad, (2006) 8 SCC 352 held that as per the Article 243U of the
Constitution prescribes 5 years tenure for Municipalities. Article 243U is
also pari materia with Article 234E. It was held in ‘para 14’ that the duration
of Municipalities is fixed as 5 years from the date of its first meeting and
no longer and the same is reproduced below:
“The effect of Article 243-U of the Constitution is to be
appreciated in the above background. Under this Article, the
duration of the Municipality is fixed for a term of five years
and it is stated that every Municipality shall continue for five
years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no
longer. Clause (3) of Article 243-U states that election to
constitute a Municipality shall be completed – (a) before the
expiry of its duration specified in clause (1), or (b) before the
expiration of a period of six months from the date or its
dissolution. Therefore, the constitutional mandate is that
election to a Municipality shall be completed before the
expiry of the five years’ period stipulated in Clause (1) of
Article 243-U and in case of dissolution, the new body shall
be constituted before the expiration of a period of six months
and elections have to be conducted in such a manner. A
Proviso is added to Sub-clause (3) Article 243-U that in case
of dissolution, the remainder of the period for which the
dissolved Municipality would have continued is less than six
months, it shall not be necessary to hold any election under
this clause for constituting the Municipality for such period.
It is also specified in Clause (4) of Article 243-U that a
Municipality constituted upon the dissolution of a
Municipality before the expiration of its duration shall
continue only for the remainder of the period for which the
dissolved Municipality would have continued under Clause
(1) had it not been so dissolved. So, in any case, the duration
of the Municipality is fixed as five years from the date of its
first meeting and no longer. It is incumbent upon the Election
Commission and other authorities to carry out the mandate
of the Constitution and to see that a new Municipality is
constituted in time and elections to the Municipality are
conducted before the expiry of its duration of five years as
specified in Clause (1) of Article 243-U.”
[50] A Single Bench of the then Gauahati High Court Imphal
Bench (now High Court of Manipur) held in the case of Rebura B v. State
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 58 of 72
of Manipur & Ors. reported as AIR 2010 GAU 100 held in ‘para 6’
that Article 243E of the Constitution as well as Section 20(1) of the MPR
Act, 1994 prescribed the tenure of the Panchayat as 5 years from the date
of its first meeting and no longer.
[51] In the case of Suresh Mahajan v. State of MP: 2022
(12) SCC 770, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the tenure of Panchayat
is 5 years and election cannot be postponed on any ground. The decision
in Uttar Dhemajigaon Panchayat and Ors. (Supra) : 2007 (3) GLT
899 permitting for extension of the tenure of the council till completion of
election, is subsequently held by another bench of Gauhati High Court to
be per incuriam vide judgment dated 22.03.2024 passed by the same court
in the case of Joynab Bibi v. Union of India.
[52] It may be relevant to refer to the Section 22 of the MPR Act,
1975 repealed by Act of 1994, which empowers the State Govt. to extend
the tenure of the Panchayat for a maximum period of 1(one) year in under
such circumstances. However, such power of extension is absent in Article
243E of the Constitution as well as Section 20 of the MPR Act, 1994. In
absence of any power and right for extension of the tenure of the
Panchayat beyond the stipulated tenure of 5 years, the judgement in Uttar
Dhemajigaon Panchayat and Ors. (Supra) and various directions of
learned Single Judge of this Court, cannot be resorted to for the extension
of tenure of the Panchayat under MPR Act, 1994.
[53] This Court does not find any force in the submissions of Mr.
N. Jotendro, learned sr. counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners that
in view of the judgement in Uttar Dhemajigaon Panchayat and Ors.
(Supra) the tenure of the Panchayat can be extended beyond the period
of 5 years. We are of the considered opinion that under no circumstances,
the tenure of the Panchayat can be extended beyond the period of 5 years
in view of the clear language of the provisions of Article 243E of the
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 59 of 72
Constitution as well as Section 20 of the MPR Act, 1994, where the power
of extension under the repealed Act of 1975 has consciously been dropped.
Question No. II. Whether Section 22 of the MPR Act is
transitionary or permanent in nature:
[54] It is the submission of Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned
Attorney General of India representing State of Manipur that Article 243E
of the Constitution provides a tenure of the GP shall continue for 5 years
from the date of its first meeting and no longer and Sub clause 2 of the
Article 243E protect the tenure of the Panchayat existing prior to the
insertion Part IX of the Constitution by 73rd amendment in 1992. In
pursuance to the Part IX of the Constitution, the Govt. of Manipur also
enacted MPR Act, 1994 and Section 20 prescribes the tenure of the
Panchayat as 5 years and both Article 243E and Section 20 mandate that
the election for the next Panchayat shall be completed before the
expiration of the tenure of the GP by the provision of Section 243E (2) of
the constitution. Any existing Panchayat prior to the enforcement of MPR
Act, 1994 shall have the full tenure under the 1975 Act and shall continue
for 5 years terms. Section 22 of the MPR Act, 1994 prescribes the provision
for appointment of Administrative Committee or Administrator on failure
to elect the member of the GP and for any sufficient reasons. Section 22
(1) provides that if the election of GP cannot be constituted immediately
after the establishment of the GP by reasons of – (a) difficulties in holding
election of the members of the GP, and (b) failure to elect such members
to consecutive election under Section 17 or any other sufficient reasons or
in the general election of the GP no members are elected or less than 2/3
of the total member are elected, the DC shall appoint an Administrative
Committee consisting of members qualified to be elected as members of
the GP being equal to the number of members as determined under
Section 17 or appoint an Administrator. Under sub clause 2 of Section 22,
the tenure of the Administrative Committee or Administrator shall notW.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 60 of 72
exceed 6 months. Sub-clause 3 of Section 22 stipulates that upon
appointment of the Administrative Committee or Administrator, the elected
members of the GP shall cease to be members of the GP and all the power
and duty of the GP shall be exercised by such Administrative Committee
or Administrator. Sub-section 4 of Section 22 prescribes that
Administrative Committee or Administrator shall be deemed to be duly
constituted GP for the purpose of this Act. By the amendment of 1996 Act,
Section 22 has been amended by deleting the word ‘Administrator’ and in
Section 22(3), the word ‘cease’ has been replaced by the word ‘continue’.
Relying on the provision of amended Section 22 (3), the Ld. Single Judge
interpreted the same date an elected member shall ‘continue’ even after
the appointment of Administrative Committee and in the circumstances,
direction was issued to the effect that the elected members of the GP
whose tenure has already expired, will continue to be member till the
notification of the election for the next GP. By the amendment of 1996 Act,
Sub-clause 5 has been added to section 22 stating that if the first election
to the GP after the commencement of the Act cannot be held, State Govt.
shall appoint Administrative Committee to exercise the power, to perform
duty and function of the GP for a period not exceeding 6 months. Referring
to the nature of Section 22, the learned Attorney General emphasizes that
the provision of Section 22 is a transitionary in nature and it has to be
resorted when the first GP after the enforcement of the Act of 1994 cannot
be constituted due to failure to hold election or due to any other reasons
as mentioned in Section 22(1). In such circumstances, an Administrative
Committee has to be appointed and such Committee will have all the
powers of the Panchayat and the tenure shall not be extended beyond 6
(six) months. Unamended Section 22(3) prescribes that upon appointment
of the Administrative Committee, the elected members of the Panchayat
shall cease to be members and all the functions and powers of the GP shall
be exercised by the Administrative Committee. The Administrative
Committee shall consist of all members who are either eligible to be a
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 61 of 72
member of the Committee i.e. the persons who are entered into the
electoral roll of the particular GP. In the circumstance, the learned Attorney
General submits that the provision of Section 22 is a transitionary in nature
whereby, the first GP cannot be constituted due to any circumstances as
mentioned in Section 22(1) and the Administrative Committee so
appointed shall be for a fixed period of 6 (six) months so as to facilitate
the holding for election. The Ld. Attorney General further submits that the
present situation arises in the 5th GP constituted in the year, 2017 whose
term has already been expired in the year 2022 and the provision of
Section 22 (3) will not be applicable as the same is transitionary in nature
and for removing the difficulties and the formation of the first Panchayat
under the MPR Act, 1994. This would be clarified by the amendment newly
inserted Section 22(5) by the amendment Act of 1996. The learned
Attorney General submits that the Ld. Single Judge was wrong in directing
that members of the GP shall continue till the holding of election.
[55] On the other hand, as an alternative plea, Mr. R.
Venkataramani, learned Attorney General submits that even if assuming
for the sake of argument that the provision of Section 22 is permanent in
nature, the amended provision of Section 22(3) does not extend the tenure
of the GP except for replacing the word ‘cease’ with ‘continue’. It is pointed
out that introducing the amendment in Section 22(3) provides that even
after the appointment of Administrative Committee, the elected members
of the GP will continue to be a member. However, there is no specific
amendment empowering for extension of the tenure beyond the 5 (five)
years. The amended Section 22(3) postulates a situation where both the
elected members as well as the Administrative Committee appointed under
Section 22(1) of the Act, exist in side by side thereby creating duality of
bodies in GP to exercise same function. The amendment in Section 22(3)
of the Act does not confer any power to the elected members of the GP
who are permitted to continue. In short, the Administrative Committee as
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 62 of 72
well as the elected members of the GP so continue cannot hold office more
than 6 (six) months.
[56] We are of the view that on careful reading of the Section 22
of the Act including the newly inserted Section 22(5) by the amendment
Act of 1996, the provision of Section 22 is transitionary in nature when it
deals with the situation on failure to constitute the first GP after the
enforcement of the Act of 1994. On the other hand, Section 22 also
stipulates that the situation where 2 (two) successive elections of the GP
could not be held meaning thereby, the provision of the act empowering
the appointment of Administrative Committee can also be exercised in
situation other than on failure to constitute the first GP. Whenever there
is a sufficient reason, the Administrative Committee can be appointed
under Section 22 (1). Section 22 (b) also prescribes a situation where no
members are elected or less than 2/3 members are elected in such
circumstances also, the DC can appoint Administrative Committee to run
the business of the GP. From all these, it is clear that the provision of
Section 22 can also be resorted in any situation other than the first
constitution of the GP, whenever there is a failure to hold election or the
result of the election is not effective in terms of the sub clause (b) of
Section 22. Therefore, it is held that the provision of Section 22 of the MPR
Act, 1994 is both transitionary as well as permanent in nature and the
same can be resorted to meet any eventuality on failure to constitute first
GP or in any subsequent GP.
Question No.III- Who are competent to be appointed as member
of the Adminstratice Committee as defined under Section 22(1):
&
Question No. IV- Extension of tenure of GP as 5 years in terms of
amended Section 22 (3):
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 63 of 72
[57] In considering the question no. I, we have already
held that the tenure of the GP cannot be extended beyond 5 (five) years.
The present questions to be answered are: (a) persons competent to be
appointed as members of the Administrative Committee, & (b) amended
Section 22(3) MPR Act, 1994 be resorted for extension of the tenure of the
GP beyond 5 (five) years as held by Ld. Single Judge. It has already
observed that Article 243E of the Constitution as well as Section 20 of the
MPR Act, 1994, does not have any proviso or exception so as to enable
the State Govt. to extend the tenure of GP beyond the fixed tenure of 5
(five) years. Section 22 is inserted to deal with a situation where first
Panchayat cannot be constituted or on failure to conduct election in
subsequent Panchayat or in-effective result of the election in terms of the
sub-clause (b) of Section 22. Reading Section 22 as a whole, the
Administrative Committee appointed to exercise the function of GP on
failure to constitute a popular GP, is for a fixed tenure of 6 (six) months
only. The amendment in Section 22(3) by the amendment Act, 1996 is
limited to replacing the word ‘cease’ with ‘continue’ whereby, the elected
members of the GP can continue as members in spite of appointment of
the Administrative Committee. The amendment only allowed the elected
members to continue where in the original Section 22(3) of the Act, the
elected members shall cease to be members upon appointment of the
Administrative Committee. This is the only differences brought by
amendment in Section 22(3). On careful examination of amended Section
22(3) of the Act, it nowhere provides for extension of the term of the
tenure of the GP beyond the 5 years. It only allowed elected members to
continue. Since the whole provision of Section 22 is limited for a period of
6 months as prescribed by Section 22(2) and newly inserted Section 22(5),
it cannot mean that the elected members without any power, can continue
beyond the period of 6 months and its existence shall be coterminous with
the tenure of Administrative Committee. In the circumstances, we are of
the view that the amended provision of Section 22 (3) does not empowersW.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 64 of 72
the State for extension of the tenure of the GP beyond the period of 6
months. The learned Single Judge has committed manifested error in
holding that the elected members of the GP can continue to be members
of such GP till the notification of the election. The direction in this regard
is totally against the statute and also judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Kishansing Tomar (supra) and Riburaj Bhugel
(supra).
[58] Section 22(b)(i) provides that an Administrative Committee
shall consist of persons qualified to be elected as the member of the GP
and such number is equal to the number of member fixed under Section
17. Section 17 of the Act prescribes that a GP shall consist of Panchayat
and such member which are directly elected member may be notified from
time to time by the State Govt., 1 (one) member per every 350 population
and by the amendment of 2012, the figure become 1(one) member per
900 population. Section 3 of the Act prescribes that a Gram Sabha (GS)
shall consist of all person whose name are included in the electoral roll
within the area of the GS and Section 13(3) prescribes that every person
entitled to be included in the list of electoral roll of Panchayat, voter not
less than 18 years of age and ordinary residence within the GP shall be
entitled to be included in the electoral list. Section 17 stipulates that a GP
shall consist of directly elected Pradhan and member from time to time.
As per provision of Section 22(1)(b)(i) the following persons are eligible
for appointed as member of the Administrative Committee.
i) the existing elected member.
ii) the unsuccessful candidate in the last election.
iii) the aspirant in the next election.
iv) any other voter of the GP.
[59] In the case of CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3
SCC 57, Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the harmonious construction
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 65 of 72
of statute in case of conflicting and inconsistencies between various
provisions. It is suggested that harmonious construction has to be adopted
to achieve the object of the legislation. Relevant para are reproduced
below.
“14. A construction which reduces the statute to a futility has to be
avoided. A statute or any enacting provision therein must be so
construed as to make it effective and operative on the principle
expressed in the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat i.e. a
liberal construction should be put upon written instruments, so as
to uphold them, if possible, and carry into effect the intention of
the parties. [See Broom’s Legal Maxims (10th Edn.), p. 361, Craies
on Statutes (7th Edn.), p. 95 and Maxwell on Statutes (11th Edn.),
p. 221.]
15. A statute is designed to be workable and the interpretation
thereof by a court should be to secure that object unless crucial
omission or clear direction makes that end unattainable. (See
Whitney v. IRC4, AC at p. 52 referred to in CIT v. S. Teja Singh5
and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT6.)
16. The courts will have to reject that construction which will defeat
the plain intention of the legislature even though there may be
some inexactitude in the language used. (See Salmon v.
Duncombe7 AC at p. 634, Curtis v. Stovin8 referred to in S. Teja
Singh case5.)
17. If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of
which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation,
we should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation
to futility, and should rather accept the bolder construction, based
on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of
bringing about an effective result. (See Nokes v. Doncaster
Amalgamated Collieries9 referred to in Pye v. Minister for Lands for
NSW10.) The principles indicated in the said cases were reiterated
by this Court in Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of India11.
18. The statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the
Act should be construed with reference to other provisions in the
same Act so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole
statute.
19. The court must ascertain the intention of the legislature by
directing its attention not merely to the clauses to be construed but
to the entire statute; it must compare the clause with other parts
of the law and the setting in which the clause to be interpreted
occurs. (See R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka12.) Such aW.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 66 of 72
construction has the merit of avoiding any inconsistency or
repugnancy either within a section or between two different
sections or provisions of the same statute. It is the duty of the
court to avoid a head-on clash between two sections of the same
Act. (See Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain13.)
20. Whenever it is possible to do so, it must be done to construe
the provisions which appear to conflict so that they harmonise. It
should not be lightly assumed that Parliament had given with one
hand what it took away with the other.
21. The provisions of one section of the statute cannot be used to
defeat those of another unless it is impossible to effect
reconciliation between them. Thus a construction that reduces one
of the provisions to a “useless lumber” or “dead letter” is not a
harmonised construction. To harmonise is not to destroy.”
[60] We do not find any forces in the submission of Mr. N.
Ibotombi, learned sr. counsel for the respondents to the effect that reading
together Section 17 and Section 22 (1)(b)(i) with the amended Section
22(3), only the elected members are to be appointed as members of the
Administrative Committee otherwise, there will be dual bodies i.e. elected
member who are allowed to continue by the amended Section 22(3) and
the Administrative Committee who exercise the function and duty of the
GP. In order to avoid such situation by harmonious construction, it has
been submitted on behalf of the respondents that only the elected
members are to be appointed as members of the Administrative
Committee. We reject this proposition and held that other eligible persons
cannot be debarred from being members of the Administrative Committee,
if they are otherwise eligible. It is already held above that the amendment
of Section 23(3) only allowed the continuation of the elected members
without any power. The elected members will have a power to exercise
the function under Section 22(3) of the Act, if and only if when they are
included in the Administrative Committee appointed under Section
22(1)(b)(i). Accordingly, it is held that all the voters in the GP are eligible
to be members of the Administrative Committee and the same does not
confine to the elected members of the GP.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 67 of 72
Question Nos. V & VI- Scope of Section 109 vis-à-vis Section 22
of the Act:
[61] Section 109 of the MPR Act, 1994 is a general clause
included in any statute where in case of any difficulties the Govt./
Competent Authority is authorized to do certain act for effective
implementation of Act and/or provision of any existing statute. The Govt.
has been exercising these powers in case of appointment of Administrative
Committee when there is failure to conduct election for the next GP due
to any reasons. Learned Attorney General assumes that the provision of
Section 22 is transitionary in nature which is to be utilized on the
constitution of first GP only and the power conferred under Section 109 of
the Act is to be resorted to tide over the situation where GP cannot be
constituted subsequently after the first GP. As the present situation arises
after the failure to conduct election on expiry of tenue of the 5th GP, State
Govt. has resorted to Section 109 of the Act to appoint Administrative
Committee for a short period. However, as rightly pointed out by the
learned Attorney General, the provision of Section 109 is a general clause
without any details and in order to have objectivity in the appointment of
the Administrative Committee, the State Govt. adopts the principles
embodied under Section 22 of the Act. The Administrative Committee is
appointed so that everybody has a chance and the appointment is in
consonance with the provision of the Act. Ld. Attorney General has already
submitted that the tenure of the Administrative Committee appointed
under Section 22 cannot exceed beyond the period of 6 months in terms
of the stipulated under Section 22(3) and Section 22(5) of the Act. The
submission of Ld. Attorney General is that the Administrative Committee
appointed under Section 22 or under Section 109 read with Section 22 of
the Act cannot have a tenure beyond the period of 6 months. We are also
in agreement with the submissions of the ld. Attorney General that the
tenure of the Administrative Committee appointed under Section 22 and/orW.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 68 of 72
under Section 109 of the Act cannot exceed the period of 6 months as
stipulated under Section 22(2) & (5) of the Act. However, in purported
compliance of the interim order dated 29.02.2024 passed by this Court,
the State Govt. issued various notifications/orders appointing
Administrative Committee for the GP and Administrator for Zilla Parishad
till the notification of the election.
[62] It may be noted that vide order dated 29.02.2024 in this writ
appeals, this Court stayed the direction of the learned Single Judge in
common judgment and order dated 18.04.2023 in as much directing the
official/representative of GP and ZP to function beyond the period
mandated by law and giving liberty to the State Govt. to appoint
Administrative Committee for GP and Administrator for ZP in accordance
with law and provision of this Act, afresh. This interim order dated
29.02.2024 has been challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and the matter is remanded to this Court without
interfering the directions of the order dated 29.02.2024.
[63] Purportedly, in compliance of the direction in the interim
order 29.02.2024, the State Govt. issued various notifications/orders
appointing Administrative Committee for GP and Administrator for ZP till
the notification of the election. We are of the view that the appointment
of the Administrative Committee for the GP and Administrator for ZP till
election is held, is in violation of the direction in order dated 29.02.2024,
the observations made in preceding para and also the submissions made
by ld. Attorney General that the Administrative Committee appointed under
Section 22 and Section 109 of the Act cannot exceed the period of 6
months. In the circumstances, we set aside all appointment orders of
Administrative Committee for Gram Panchayat and Administrator for Zilla
Parishad with a tenure exceeding the period of 6 (six) months and till the
notification of the election, as the same are ultra vires the mandate of
Article 243E of the Constitution as well as provision of Section 22 of the
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 69 of 72
Act. In the circumstances, the present writ appeals are allowed and the
common impugned judgment and order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the
Ld. Single Judge in the batch of writ petitions being WP(C) No. 266 of
2023, WP(C) No. 205 of 2023 & WP(C) No. 239 of 2023 are set aside with
respect to permitting the elected members to continue till the notification
of the new election. The State Govt. is directed to conduct fresh election
for the Panchayat within a period of 6 months. In order to make the
Panchayati Raj system workable in Manipur, the State Govt. has been
given the liberty to appoint fresh Administrative Committee for Gram
Panchayat and Administrator for Zilla Parishad no exceeding a period of 6
(six) months keeping in mind in term of the provision of Sections 22 & 92
of the Act. It is also held that in exercising the power under Section 109
of the Act for appointment of the Administrative Committee for the
subsequent GP even after the first constitution, the tenure of the
Administrative Committee appointed under Section 109 of the Act cannot
have a period exceeding 6 months and/or till the election are held.
CONCLUSIONS & DECISIONS:
[64] In view of the above findings, observations and directions,
we hold and direct as follows:
i) The present writ appeals being W.A. No. 9 of 2024, W.A.
No. 10 of 2024 & W.A. No. 11 of 2024 are allowed and
the directions of the Ld. Single Judge to allow the elected
members to continue as members of Gram Panchayat
and Zila Parishad till the election are held, are set aside.
ii) The tenure of Gram Panchayat cannot exceed the period
of 5(five) years as mandated by Article 243E of the
Constitution of India and Section 20 of the Manipur
Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
iii) The provision of Section 22 of the Act is both
transitionary and permanent in nature.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 70 of 72
iv) The amended provision of Section 22(3) of the Manipur
Panchayati Raj Act as amended in 1996 does not confer
any power to extend the tenure of the Gram Panchayat
beyond the stipulated period of 5 years or till the election
are conducted.
v) All voters in the Gram Panchayat are eligible to be elected
as members of the Administrative Committee under
Section 22 of the Act.
vi) When the elected members of the GP are appointed as
members of the Administrative Committee, they will be
eligible to exercise the functions and powers of the Gram
Panchayat under Section 22(3) of the Act.
vii) Section 109 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is a
general clause empowering the authority to remove
difficulties and in doing so, the Authority has no power
to appoint Administrative Committee beyond the period
of 6 months and/or till the election are notified.
viii) All orders of appointment of the Administrative
Committee of the Gram Panchayat and Administrator for
Zilla Parishad, issued by State Govt. in pursuance of the
interim order dated 29.02.2024 for a term exceeding the
period of 6 (six) months and till the election are held, are
all set aside.
ix) All other orders of appointment of the Administrative
Committee of the Gram Panchayat and Administrator for
Zilla Parishad, issued by State Govt. for a term exceeding
the period of 6 (six) months and till the election are held,
are also all set aside.
x) The State Govt. is directed to conduct fresh election
within a period of 6 months.
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 71 of 72
xi) Till the next election is conducted as directed in para (x)
above, the State Govt. is at liberty to appoint fresh
Administrative Committee for the Gram Panchayat and
Administrator for Zilla Parishad in terms of the provisions
of Section 22, Section 92 and Section 109 of the Manipur
Panchayati Raj, Act 1994 for a period not exceeding 6
months.
[65] In terms of the order passed in the present writ appeals, the
present MC(WA) No. 20 of 2024, MC(WA) No. 21 of 2024 & MC(WA) No.
22 of 2024 are disposed of accordingly.
[66] We appreciate the valuable assistant given by Mr. R.
Venkataramani, learned Attorney General of India, Mr. Lenin Hijam,
learned Advocate General, Manipur, Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned sr. counsel,
Mr. N. Jotendro, learned sr. counsel and Mr. S. Biswajit, learned sr. counsel
appearing for the parties in evolving and laying down the correct
proposition of law with respect to tenure of the Panchayat and the law
with regard to the appointment of Administrative Committee and
Administrator.
[67] Send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Manipur for information and necessary compliance.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
OINAM
FR/NFR
Thoiba Digitally signed by
OINAM THOIBA MEITEI
THOIBA Date: 2025.08.29
MEITEI 13:42:03 +05'30'
W.A. No. 9 of 2024 with W.A. No. 10 of 2024 with W.A. No. 11 of 2024 Page 72 of 72
[ad_1]
Source link