Manipur High Court
Lairikyengbam Tamocha Roy & Anr vs Prashant Kumar Singh on 21 July, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Digitally signed by
KHOIROM KHOIROM
BIPINCHAN BIPINCHANDRA
SINGH
DRA SINGH Date: 2025.07.21
22:00:16 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CONT. CAS(C) No. 82 of 2025
Lairikyengbam Tamocha Roy & Anr.
... Petitioners
- Versus -
Prashant Kumar Singh, Chief Secretary &
10 Ors.
... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K. SOMASHEKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
O R D E R
[K. Somashekar, CJ]
21.07.2025
[1] This contempt proceeding has been initiated by the
complainant/petitioner for willful disobedience of order passed by the
Coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No. 917 of 2017 dated 30.10.2023 by urging
various grounds.
[2] Learned senior counsel for the respondents no. 2 – 11, Mr.
M. Devananda is present before this Court and similarly, learned Government
Advocate for the respondent No. 1, Mr. RK Umakanta is also present before
this Court physically.
[3] Whereas, learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner, Mr.
E. Premjit is present before this Court physically and submits that even
though the proceeding in CONT. CAS(C) No. 115 of 2023 in the aforesaid
proceeding was disposed of in its order dated 19.03.2025 and wherein, in
Page 1|5
the aforesaid contempt proceeding, Mr. E. Premjit, who was counsel for the
complainant/petitioner and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to file fresh petitions subject to satisfaction of the Limitation Act.
[4] Whereas, the order dated 19.03.2025 indicates that the
CONT.CAS(C) No. 23 of 2025 and CONT. CAS(C) No. 115 of 2023 were
dismissed as withdrawn in its order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure – P/34).
[5] Whereas, the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner
refers to Para No. 30 of the order rendered in W.P.(C) No. 917 of 2017. The
said Para No. 30 reveals that there are 31 posts in the cadre of Executive
Engineer / Surveyor of Works / Engineers Officers, i.e. 20 Nos. of Temporary,
7 Nos. of Permanent and 4 Nos. of Supernumerary. Due to the interim order,
all these posts are lying vacant. 14 Executive Engineers promoted by DPC
proceedings dated 03.02.2018 and promotion order dated 03.02.2018, have
already retired from service and only 6 of them are now in service. The 23
direct recruit-Assistant Engineers can be considered in the remaining 25
vacant posts of Executive Engineers, after adjusting the serving 6 Executive
Engineers promoted vide DPC proceeding dated 03.02.2018.
[6] Wherein, in this matter, the learned counsel for the
complainant/petitioner press into service for consideration of the aforesaid
Para No. 14 and wherein, there is an observation by the Co-ordinate Bench.
Therefore, this contempt proceeding has been initiated by the
complainant/petitioner for taking action against the respondent/accused for
willful disobedience of the Court’s order and on this premises, requires to
comply with the order rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid
proceeding.
[7] On contrary, the learned senior counsel, Mr. M. Devananda
who is present before this Court physically is submitting that even though
Page 2|5
the earlier contempt proceeding was initiated by the complainant/petitioner
(Annexure-P/34) i.e. CONT. CAS(C) No. 23 of 2025 and this proceeding is
clubbed with the proceeding i.e. CONT. CAS(C) No. 115 of 2023 wherein,
clubbing the contempt cases wherein, Mr. E. Premjit was appearing on behalf
of the complainant/petitioner and seeks leave liberty to withdraw the present
contempt petition. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition subject to satisfaction of the
[8] Wherein, the learned senior counsel in this matter is
submitting that the order rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No.
917 of 2017 has already been complied with in its order dated 27.12.2023
(Annexure – P/15), wherein in Para No. 8 of the compliance report indicates
that in view of the facts and circumstance of the case and in view of the
order dated 30.10.2023 rendered in W.P.(C) No. 917 of 2017 and other
connected proceedings. The order No. 3/7/2016-IFC (Promo) dated
03.02.2018 promoting the 20 (twenty) Assistant Engineer (AEs) to the post
of Executive Engineers (EEs) in the WRD has been restored back. Out of
these 20 (twenty) AEs, 14 (fourteen) AEs had already retired on attaining
the age of superannuation and at present only 6 (six) Assistant Engineers
are in service. However, their promotion will be on notional basis with effect
from 03.02.2018 for all purposes (except arrears financial benefits) and their
financial benefits will be with immediate effect, in terms of Govt. O.M. No.
18/5/2005-FD(PIC), dated 10.10.2005 issued by the Finance Department.
The same has been indicated in Para No. 8 of the compliance report issued
by the Commissioner (WR), Government of Manipur, dated 27.12.2023.
Page 3|5
[9] Therefore, the learned senior counsel in this matter is
submitting that the order has been rendered by the Commissioner (WR),
Government of Manipur dated 27.12.2023 pursuance of the order rendered
by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No. 917 of 2017 and connected
proceedings and therefore, it does not arise compliance again to initiate
contempt proceeding and because liberty has been accorded to the
complaint/petitioner in the proceeding of CONT. CAS(C) No. 23 of 2025 and
also connected proceeding in CONT. CAS(C) No. 115 of 2023 and therefore,
the learned senior counsel is submitting that the present contempt
proceeding does not survive for consideration.
[10] Keeping in view of the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, Mr. E. Premjit and learned senior counsel for the
respondents No. 2 to 11, Mr. M. Devananda, provision of Section 2(b) of the
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 reveals in this matter which reads as thus –
Section 2(b) : “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to
any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process
of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;
[11] However, this contempt proceeding has been initiated by the
complainant/petitioner seeking intervention of taking action against the
respondent/accused for willful disobedience of order rendered by the Co-
ordinate Bench in the aforesaid writ petition. When once the compliance
report has been submitted and also compliance of the order rendered by the
Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid writ petitions and also compliance made
by the concerned respondents/authorities and therefore, it is stated that no
ingredients have been constituted in respect of Section 2(b) of Contempt of
Court Act, 1971.
Page 4|5
[12] Consequently, this contempt proceeding does not survive for
consideration to persuade the matter to take action against the
respondents/accused for willful disobedience of the order as sought for.
[13] Accordingly, the present contempt is hereby dismissed for
the aforesaid reasons and findings.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Bipin
Page 5|5