Manipur High Court
Meeyam Amata Oina Punsinba Lup vs The State Of Manipur & 2 Ors on 16 June, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
1
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2025.06.20
13:05:41 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
PIL No.8 of 2025
Meeyam Amata Oina Punsinba Lup.
Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Manipur & 2 Ors.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
(ORDER)
(K. SOMASHEKAR, C.J.)
16.06.2025.
[1] This PIL has been initiated by the petitioner keeping in view
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and whereby in this writ petition
seeking for intervention and also seeking some sort of reliefs as follows:
(i) call for records and issue rule-nisi calling upon the respondents to
show cause as to why the prayer prayed for by the petitioner shall not
be granted;
(ii) to direct the respondents to stop the illegal execution of the
construction of work rejuvenation of Lamphelpat Waterbody to alleviate
urban flooding providing sustainable water resources for Imphal city and
promoting Eco-Tourism as such there is negligence on the part of the
technical staff and the contractors in violation of the dumping procedure
for removing of the muds and clays at the time of execution of the said
project;
(iii) to direct the respondents authority more particularly Commissioner,
Water Resources Department, Government of Manipur for causing
2remedial action under Section 24 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005
preventing against the flash flood due to the dumping of large quantity
of muds and clays in and around Lamphelpat waterbody, deposited at
the time of the construction of the work rejuvenation of Lamphelpat
waterbody to alleviate urban flooding providing sustainable water
resources for Imphal city and promoting Eco-Tourism,
(iv) to direct the respondents authority for providing a temporary space
for Rehabilitation Centre at the time of flood to family members who are
settled in and around the Lamphelpat area.
[2] Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. L. Shyam
and also learned AG, Lenin Hijam, assisted by Mr. I. Amri for the State in
this matter.
[3] Whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner in this matter
submitted that the petitioner is an association namely Meeyam Amata
Oina Punsinba Lup (MAPUL) being registered No. 494/ID of 1988(M)
dated 04-08-1988 represented by its secretary namely Kshetrimayum
Ratan Meitei, aged about 45 years, but the said Association has been
established with the main objective to promote the persons who are
socially or economically disability, economically disadvantageous position
and for the protection of the environment. It is stated that the petitioner
has no personal interest in the litigation and the petition is not guided by
self-gain or for gain for any other persons/ institutions/ body and there is
no motive other than of Public Interest for filing the Public Interest
Litigation petition. In support of all his contentions, the petitioner has
facilitated the documents as Annexures A/1, A/2, A/3, A/4, A/5 and A/6.
[4] In para 12 of this Public Interest Litigation and wherein it has
taken contention that it is also important to mention that the purpose of
3
the present Rejuvenation Project is in the interest of the environment and
to overcome the damage already caused to the environment due to the
deposition of clays and muds coming from the Langol Hills which are
deposited in the Waterbody in every rainy season, the same has been
stated in para 12.
[5] Whereas in para 13, it stated as that regarding the flood in
the rainy season the entire rain water are required to be discharged
through the water canal from Lamphelpat through Samushang and
discharged to the Nambul River, the same has been stated in para 13.
[6] Whereas in para 14, it is indicated that another aspect which
required the Rejuvenation of Lamphelpat waterbody are erosion takes
place at various places due to more velocity during the rainy season
whereas in the prayer column of this Public Interest Litigation indicating
that to direct the respondent authority more particularly Commissioner,
Water Resource Department Government of Manipur for causing
remedial action under section 24 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005
preventing against the flash flood due to the dumping of large quantity of
muds and clays in and around Lamphelpat waterbody, deposited at the
time of the construction of the work rejuvenation of Lamphalpat waterbody
to alleviate urban flooding providing sustainable water resources for
Imphal city and promoting Eco-Tourism. Keeping in view all the aforesaid
prayers as sought for by the petitioner in the nature of Public Interest
Litigation are concerned, it is deemed appropriate to refer the Site
Inspection Report, wherein the said Site Inspection Report consisting of
4
paras No. 1(1.1,1.2); 2(2.1,2.2,2.3, 2.4. 2.5,2.6), 3(3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4); 4; 5
and 6 inclusive of other vital documents with the signatures of the
concerned officials have been produced before the court by the
respondents for perusal. The Site Inspection Report is reproduced as
under:
SITE INSPECTION REPORT
1. Background
1.1 The Hon’ble High Court of Manipur, double bench has taken up the matter of public
interest litigation vide PIL No. 8 of 2025 (Meeyam Amata Oina Punsiba Lup -Vs-
The State of Manipur & Ors) filed by Meeyam Amata Oina Punsiba Lup (MAPUL),
challenging the illegal executive of the construction of work related to Lamphelpat
Waterbody Rejuvenation Project. The Hon’ble High Court of Manipur directed The
Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Manipur, to inspect the subject
matter of execution of work and file a report before the Hon’ble Court regarding
the allegation made in the representation dated 22-03-2025.
1.2 In compliance to the Hon’ble High Court directions, the Water Resources
Department vide order No. 8, dated 30-04-2025 (Copy enclosed as Annexure-I),
have conducted an extensive site inspection of the works being executed under
Lamphelpat Waterbody Project on 02-05-2025.
2. Details of the dredging work being executed under the project
2.1 The Lamphelpat waterbody project has been framed with the main objective to
mitigate flood through Integrated Flood Risk Management and at the same time to
address the water security of Imphal city. One of the major activities under the
project is the development of waterbody for an area of around 300 acres. The work
involves dredging of the area at the same time pumping the dredge earth at the
designated location for settlement.
2.2 For the execution of these work, work contract was awarded to the frim M/s Reach
Dredging Ltd vide work order no. EE/EMD/WB-WO/2023-24 dated 09-11-2023.
The contract period is 2 years.
2.3 The dredging of work is being executed by using a specialized equipment i.e., Cutter
Suction Dredging Machine (CSD 450). The equipment through its cutter head
loosens the soil, suck it up in the form of slurry and transport it to the designated
5
disposal site via pipelines. The execution of the dredging work has the following
stages:
Stage I – Prior to disposal of the slurry, the disposal site is being
prepared using dykes to contained the slurry inside the
disposed area.
Stage II – Depending of the nature of dyke, the dykes are strengthened
with either bamboo mat with bamboo pile/geotextile-
sheets/HDPE geo-membrane sheet/other sheets.
Stage III – The sediment particles of the slurry are allowed to settle
inside the dyke area and the excess water is drain out using
outlet pipes and peripheral drains are constructed around
the dyke area to collect the drained water again towards
the waterbody area again.
Stage IV – The disposed area normally solidifies within 4 to 6 months.
If required, disposed area may be compacted using
compaction equipment.
2.4 In order to check the quality of the dredge water and dredge soil, regular testing is
being done through certified agency/institutes. The dyke is being monitored round
the clock for any damages during the pumping period.
2.5 The dredge earth is being dumped at these following dump areas after formal
communication and understanding with the landowners/authorities (Details
enclosed as Annexure-A1-A6).
(a) Vacant area of National Institute of Technology (NIT) Campus.
(b) Vacant area of RIMS, Imphal Campus.
(c) Area of Manipur Baseball Patronizing Association.
(d) Area of Manipur Horse Riding & Polo Association.
(e) Vacant Area of Central Agricultural University (CAU), Imphal.
(f) Vacant Low-lying area of Ayush Hospital.
(g) Within the project area for the development of Green Belt, Kombirei (Lamphel
pat ki Kombirei) park, grazing field for the pony and other animals.
(h) Vacant Low-lying area of PHED Sewage Project Campus.
2.6 For effective monitoring of the project execution, a third party project monitoring
& Supervision Consultant, WAPCOS Ltd, a PSU owned by Ministry of Jal Shakti is
being deployed by Water Resources Department under the Project.
3. Observation and Finding during the site visit
6
3.1 Officials of Water Resources Department Headed by Chief Engineer along with
official of WAPCOS Pvt. Lt. and M/s Reach Dredging Ltd visited the project site on
02-05-2025.
3.2 The team inspected the following 12 (twelve) numbers of disposal dyke sites where
ongoing disposal works are in progress.
Sl. No. Dyke Area Location Details
a) Disposal Dyke No.1 16 Inside NIT Western adjacent to Meitei
Langol Village in the North-Western side
b) Disposal Dyke No.2 87 Inside NIT Wester Campus adjacent to
NIT
Boys Hostel
c) Disposal Dyke No.3 65 Inside NIT eastern Campus adjacent to
NIT Girls Hostel (in Western side);
Shija Hospital & Langol Lai Manai
( in North-Western side)
d) Disposal Dyke No.4 41 Inside NIT eastern Campus adjacent to
Tarung Village(in Eastern Side)
e) Disposal Dyke No.5 31 Baseball and Polo Campus situated at
Easter side of NIT campus
f) Disposal Dyke No.6 8 Ayush Hospital Campus situated at
eastern side of waterbody
g) Disposal Dyke No.7 49 Project Green Belt area
h) Disposal Dyke No.8 24 PHED campus
i) Disposal Dyke No.10 36 RIMS Northern Campus
j) Disposal Dyke No.11 13
k) Disposal Dyke No.12 46 Project Greenbelt area
L) Disposal Dyke No.14 4 Project are
3.3 The following observations were recorded during the site visit.
(a) The firm have constructed all peripheral drain network as shown in the map
enclosed as Annexure-B.
(b) All the disposal area dykes have been constructed with adequate width and
height, protection of dykes with bamboo mats and geo – HDPE geo-membrane
sheet are found in most of the dykes. (Enclosed photo no.1/1,1/2)
(c) Proper excess drain outlets are provided for all the dykes. (Enclosed photo no.
2)
7
(d) Peripheral drains constructed around the dyke area were checked. Re-
sectioning and cleaning of the drains have been completed by the firm.
(Enclosed photo no.3)
(e) Peripheral drains in the Northern side of dyke 3 inside the NIT Campus are
constructed and maintained at appropriate depth, as of now these drain carries
all the runoff water from the surrounding local population situated in the
Northern side of the dyke. (Enclosed photo no.4/1,4/2,4/3,4/4)
(f) The Chief Engineer (WRD) have instructed the firm to continue monitoring of
the drains for any blockage during the monsoon season so that immediate
remedial measures can be addressed.
3.4 During the site visit all the water, soil & ambient air & noise testing report collected
for the work were checked. As per the reports the following observation are
concluded.
(a) Testing were conducted through 3 (three) different ISO certified Agencies viz.,
a) SRIC, Manipur Technical University, Manipur; Prodcontrol (India) Private
Limited, Kolkata; Envirocon, Assam (copy enclosed as Annexure C).
(b) As per testing report, there is no case of soil contamination.
(c) The Turbidity of the soil is on the higher side; this is expected as the dredging
work is in progress and it involves cutting of earth.
4. Further, provision for pumping of flood water from the Lamphel pat water body to
the Nambul River through Shamushang Nalla during high flood season is currently
in active at shamushang station.
5. This year populations of migratory birds have increased as recorded by official
teams of forest and wildlife department who have visited the Lamphel pat water body
area for the census of the birds. The reason has been credited due to the increase of
water spread area of Lamphelpat waterbody as a result of the project and the report
was published in national newspaper. (copy enclosed as Annexure- D/1,D/2).
6. Disposal Dyke 1, 4, 5, 11, 12 & 14 are already solidified and cattle grazing inside
the filled up area was visible during the site visit (Enclosed photo no. 5/1,5/2).
[7] Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid report in detail as
submitted by the authorities in this Public Interest Litigation are
concerned, it is deemed appropriate to refer to the Article 14 of the
Constitution of India i.e. equality before law. The concept of equality is a
8
positive concept. Court can command the State to give equal treatment to
similarly situated persons but cannot issue a mandate that the State
should commit illegality or pass wrong order because in another case
such an illegality has been committed or wrong order has been passed.
Article 14 cannot be invoked for perpetuating irregularities or illegalities,
the same has been in detail rendered in the case of Usha Mehta v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2012.
[8] Whereas Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it revealed as
protection of life and personal liberty. No person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Article 21 of the Constitution in its expansive meaning encompasses
various rights of elderly persons/ senior citizens such as right to dignity,
right to health, right to adequate pension and right to shelter. There is
need to continuously monitor implementation of rights of elderly persons/
senior citizens. Extensively addressed the issue by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in judgement of Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India Writ
Petition (C) No. 193 of 2018, decided on 18.12.2018.
[9] Whereas Article 226 of Constitution of India relating to the
writs, the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution,
which is essentially an equity jurisdiction, should not be exercised in
favour of a person who approaches the Court after long laps of time and
no cogent explanation is given for the delay. However, no hard and fast
rule can be laid down or a straight-jacket formula can be adopted for
deciding whether or not the High Court should entertain a belated petition
9
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and each case must be decided
on its own facts and this issue has been addressed by the Hon. Supreme
Court of India in judgment of Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society
Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, 2012 AIR (SC) 1395 whereas 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; S.P. Gupta
v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1982 SC 149; D.C. Wadhwa v. State of
Bihar, reported in AIR 1987 SC 579; Ratlam Municipality v. Vardichand,
reported in AIR 1980 SC 1622.
[10] Therefore, keeping in view the reliance which has been
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Site
Inspection Report in detail which is stated supra and also keeping in view
the aforesaid Articles of the Constitution are concerned, it is deemed
appropriate to state that there is no substance in the contentions made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner for seeking intervention by filing the
instant writ petition in the nature of PIL and hence, this PIL does not
survive for consideration of all the prayers sought for by the petitioner.
[11] In view of the above reasons and findings, this PIL is
disposed of.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE John Kom