Manipur High Court
In Re Monitoring Of Flood And Landslide … vs State Of Manipur And 40 Others on 10 July, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM
SUSHIL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.11 18:00:42 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
PIL No. 15 of 2025
In Re Monitoring of Flood and Landslide Issues in the
State of Manipur
Petitioner
Vs.
State of Manipur and 40 Others
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
ORDER
(K. Somashekar, C.J.)
10.07.2025
[1] Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned AG for the State of Manipur is
present before this Court physically; Mr. Ningthoujam Geoffrey who is the
respondent No. 3 i.e. the Commissioner, Water Resource Department,
Govt. of Manipur inclusive of Mr. Sumant Singh who is the respondent No.
6 i.e., Commissioner, Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of Manipur are
present in person before this Court physically. Similarly, the learned senior
counsel Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar for the petitioner is also present physically
before this Court in this suo moto Public Interest Litigation which has been
initiated keeping in view the issues which are in detail stated in this Public
Interest Litigation. However, there is some specific role of respondent No.
3 and respondent No. 6. In this suo moto PIL, in all there are respondents
No. 1 to respondents No. 43 but the restrict role is made in respect of
Page | 1
respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 6 but respondent No. 3 and
respondent No. 6 in this matter are present in person before the Court
physically pursuant to the direction in the preceding order sheet in this
Public Interest Litigation.
[2] However, the learned AG in this matter is submitting that
swift action was taken by the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 6
inclusive the role of respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 6 but the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner in this matter is submitting that
this natural calamity will occur every year in the month of June and July
which indicates that the monsoon is approaching and therefore, it has to
be controlled immediately and unless, there shall be remedial methods
which ought to have been taken by the responsible authorities at Imphal
i.e., in the State of Manipur. However, keeping in view the details
contentious contention has been taken in this suo moto PIL which has
been initiated by the State Legal Services Authority but represented by the
learned senior counsel Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar for the petitioner.
[3] However, keeping in view the issues in between the
petitioner and respondents in the rank of the parties inclusive of the role
of the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 6 and therefore, it is deemed
appropriate to refer the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India
with its heading as “power of High Courts to issue certain writs” but
in this Public Interest Litigation the petitioner is seeking for an intervention
Page | 2
of the respondents as each of the respondents have their pivotal role but
the high court under 226 of the Constitution is not only entitled to issue
writs but is also entitled to issue directions or orders and the same has
been addressed in the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India reported in the case of Aruna Ramchandran Shanbaug v.
Union of India reported in AIR 2011 SC 1290. Whereas, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
reported in AIR 1982 SC 149, it is addressed that public interest litigation
is a proceeding in which an individual or group seeks relief in the interest
of the general public and not for its own purpose. Apart from that, the
same has been addressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1987 SC 579
and also in the judgment of Ratlam Municipality v. Vardhichand
reported in AIR 1980 SC 1622.
[4] Therefore, keeping in view the ratio of the cases which has
been rendered by the Supreme Court of India are concerned, it is deemed
appropriate that the learned AG be directed to secure the comprehensive
report from each of the respondents and specifically, the respondent No.
3 and respondent No. 6 and they have a greater role to play in the remedial
measures to this natural calamity which could be occurred every year. This
is the submission which is made by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner in this matter. Mere because submitting the comprehensive
Page | 3
report otherwise to secure any report from the concerned authorities and
even though swift action has been taken it does not arise for remedial
measure has been taken immediately. However, under the Public Interest
Litigation which is in the nature, we have to deal the issues relating to
fundamental rights, constitutional rights and constitutional rights including
natural rights and so also the human rights. But acting to the human rights,
it is the duty cast upon to the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 6,
swift action should be taken immediately otherwise they will face the
consequences severely.
[5] Accordingly, made an observation. [6] Keeping in view the issue, this suo moto PIL has been
initiated by the Manipur State Legal Services Authority.
[7] In the meanwhile, it is deemed appropriate that the learned
AG and also the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in this matter to
submit the remedial measures as how to control this natural calamities
which is occurring every year; it is not in the hands of the human being
and therefore, it is deemed appropriate that the learned AG and also the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner in this suo moto PIL be directed
to submit the remedial measures in terms of the formation of the
committee which are very much required for monitoring the issues.
However, keeping in view the fact that it is violating the human rights
inclusive of the constitutional rights indicating therein.
Page | 4
[8] Accordingly, made an observation.
[9] However, the learned AG is seeking some short
accommodation to submit the comprehensive report and that report would
be secured from the concerned authorities.
[10] However, the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 6 are
the responsible persons and they are present before the court physically
pursuant to the direction of this court in the preceding order sheet in this
matter. Therefore, respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 6 be directed to
submit the comprehensive report, if not the matter will be viewed
seriously.
[11] Consequently, this matter would be listed on 25th July, 2025.
[12] However, in this matter, learned AG is submitting the
exemption applications. That exemption applications have been filed by
the learned AG to exempt the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 6
from their appearance in the court but they are present physically before
the court pursuant to the direction of this court in the preceding order
sheet in this PIL. Therefore, the exemption applications do not survive at
this stage and consequently, that exemption applications in respect of the
respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 6 stand disposed it of. However, the
presence of respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 6 physically before the
court in this PIL is taken on record.
Page | 5
[13] In the meanwhile, the learned AG is submitting that the
respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 6 are the senior officers and they
may be exempted from their presence in the court in this matter. But, in
this matter, the issues in between the petitioner and the respondents are
concerned, there is no question of seniority in their role before the court
but they must attend the court whenever it is deemed necessary or
required to appraise the issues.
[14] Accordingly, made an observation. [15] At this stage, they cannot be exempted in entirety in the
proceeding of this PIL. However, keeping in view the submission made by
the learned AG in this matter are concerned, it is deemed appropriate that
since the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 6 are present before the
court physically in this suo moto PIL pursuant to the order passed by this
court in the preceding order sheet, their presence is exempted for the day
only.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil
Page | 6