Manipur High Court
Shri Ningtinglung Kamei vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The … on 3 March, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.03.12 14:48:50 +05'30'
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
PIL No. 19 of 2024
Shri Ningtinglung Kamei, aged about 43 years, S/o
Kameidun Kamei, a permanent resident of Nungba
village P.O & P.S. Nungba, District Noney, Manipur-
795147.
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief
Secretary, Govt. of Manipur, Old Secretariat, Babupara,
P.O., P.S. & District Imphal West, Manipur- 795001.
2. The Special Chief Secretary (TA & Hills) Government of
Manipur, Secretariat, Babupara, P.O., P.S. & District,
Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.
3. The Hill Areas Committee, Manipur Legislative
Assembly, represented by its Chairman (HAC), at
Manipur State Assembly Complex, Thangmeiband,
P.O., P.S. & District Imphal, Manipur- 795001.
4. The Chairman, Hill Areas Committee, Manipur
Legislative Assembly, at Manipur State Assembly
Complex, Thangmeiband, P.O., P.S. & District Imphal,
Manipur - 795001.
5. The Autonomous District Council, Kangpokpi,
represented by its Chief Executive Officer at Kangpokpi,
P.O., P.S. & District Kangpokpi Manipur - 795107.
PIL No. 19 of 2024 Page 1 of 15
6. The Autonomous Dist. Council, Senapati, represented
by its Chief Executive Officer, at Senapati, P.O., P.S. &
District Senapati, Manipur - 795105.
7. The Autonomous District Council, Tamenglong
represented by its Chief Executive Officer, at
Tamenglong, P.O., P.S. & District Tamenglong,
Manipur - 795125.
8. The Autonomous District Council, Chandel,
represented by its Chief Executive Officer, at Chandel,
P.O., P.S. & District Chandel, Manipur - 795135.
9. The Autonomous District Council, Ukhrul, represented
by its Chief Executive Officer, at Ukhrul, P.O., P.S. &
District Ukhrul, Manipur - 795145.
10. The Autonomous District Council, Churachandpur,
represented by its Chief Executive Officer, at
Churachandpur, P.O., P.S. & District Churachandpur,
Manipur - 795128.
.... Respondents
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. D. KRISHNAKUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Petitioner :: Mr. Serto T. Kom, Advocate (V.C.);
Mr. Ahel Kom, Advocate
For the Respondents :: Mr. M. Devananda, Addl. AG;
Ms. N. Jyotsana, Advocate;
Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Sr. Advocate;
Mr. W. Jamon, Advocate.
Date of Hearing and
Judgment & Order :: 03.03.2025
PIL No. 19 of 2024 Page 2 of 15
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(ORAL)
(D. Krishnakumar, C.J) :
Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel assisted by Ahel Kom,
learned counsel, appears for the petitioner through Video
Conferencing; Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. AG assisted by Ms.
N. Jyotsana, learned counsel, appears for the State respondents and
Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar assisted by Mr. W. Jamon, learned counsel,
appears for the respondents No. 3 and 4.
2. The present petition, in the guise of Public Interest
Litigation (PIL), has been filed the petitioner challenging the impugned
the Resolution No. 59/2024-(HAC) dated 14.10.2024 passed by the
Chairman (HAC), Manipur Legislative Assembly.
3. The petitioner namely, Mr. Ningtinglung Kamei who has
filed the PIL before this Court, is a voter in the hill area and he is also
eligible to contest the elections for the District Councils and therefore,
he is being representing for the villages of Noney district, and he is
representing for the entire State in the instant writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contends that the present PIL has been filed challenging the
Resolution dated 14.10.2024 which is maintainable. According to him,
the aforesaid Resolution and recommendation made by the Chairman
(HAC), Manipur Legislative Assembly is without jurisdiction and
PIL No. 19 of 2024 Page 3 of 15
therefore, violates Sections 4, 9 and 11 of the Manipur (Hill Areas)
District Councils Act, 1971 (hereinafter the Act of 1971). He also draws
the attention of this Court to the aforesaid provisions of Sections 4, 9
and 11 of the Act of 1971 which are defined as follows :-
“Section 4. Constitution of District Councils and their
composition-
(1) For each autonomous district there shall be a District
Council as from such date as the Administrator may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf.
(2) The total number of seats in the District Council to be filled
by persons chosen by direct election on the basis of adult
suffrage from territorial constituencies shall be not more
than eighteen.
(3) The Administrator may nominate not more than two persons,
not being persons in the service of Government, to be
members of any District Council.”
“Section 9. Electors on electoral rolls.-
(1) The persons entitled to vote at elections of members of a
District Council shall be the persons entitled, by virtue of the
provisions of the Constitution and theRepresentation of the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950), to be
registered as voters at elections to the House of the People.
(2) So much of the electoral roll for any parliamentary
constituency for the time being in force as relates to the areas
comprised within a constituency formed under section 5 shall
be deemed to be the electoral roll for that constituency for the
purposes of this Act.”
“Section 11. Election of members.-
Election of members of a District Council shall be held in
accordance with the rules made under section 21 on such date or
dates as the Administrator may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, direct:
PIL No. 19 of 2024 Page 4 of 15
Provided that a casual vacancy shall be filled as soon as may be
after the occurrence of the vacancy:
Provided further that no election shall be held to fill up a casual
vacancy occurring within four months prior to the holding of a
general election under this section.”
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
impugned Resolution No. 59/2024-(HAC) dated 14.10.2024 passed
by the Chairman (HAC), Manipur Legislative Assembly in so far to
conduct the long pending election to the Autonomous District
Councils. The writ petitioner has no objection for implementation of the
said Resolution passed by the Chairman (HAC), Manipur Legislative
Assembly.
6. But the petitioner is aggrieved by the second limb of the
said Resolution of the Committee for constituting a Committee
consisting a total of 20 members for each ADCs to make temporary
arrangement till the ADC election is conducted in terms of the Division
Bench’s judgment and order dated 15.03.2024 passed in WA No. 353
of 2023. Therefore, the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner
vehemently made an objection that the aforesaid Resolution passed
by the Hill Area Committee, Manipur Legislative Assembly is contrary
to the provisions of the Act of 1971 and therefore, the said Resolution
passed by the Committee is without jurisdiction.
PIL No. 19 of 2024 Page 5 of 15
7. Therefore, the petitioner has contended that the writ
petitioner is being aggrieved by the second limb of the said Resolution
dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Hill Area Committee(HAC) as the
HAC has no power and jurisdiction to recommend for constituting a
Committee consisting of 20 members for each ADCs, to be selected
amongst the former ADC members/experts on local self Govt./eminent
persons/intellectuals and 2 (two) Govt. nominees of the District as a
temporary arrangement till the ADC election is conducted, as the
same is in contravention of the scheme of the “The Manipur (Hill
Areas) District Councils Act, 1971.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also draws
the attention of this Court by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Chief of Army Staff and Ors. -Vs- Major Dharam
Pal Kukrety reported in (1985) 2 SCC 412 wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that when the authority passed an order without
jurisdiction, the same is open to be challenged under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that, in the present case on hand, when the Resolution is
passed by the HAC without having any jurisdiction, the said writ
petition/PIL is maintainable.
9. Mr. M. Devananda, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State respondents strongly made an objection to the
contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying
PIL No. 19 of 2024 Page 6 of 15
upon Section 47 of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971
(hereinafter refers to as the Act of 1971) which read as follows :-
“Section 47. Supersession of District Council.
(1) ……………………….
(a) ……………………….
(b) ……………………….
(c) ……………………….
(d) a situation has arisen in which the administration of any District
Council cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of
this Act,the Administrator may, by an order published, together with a
statement of reasons therefor, in the Official Gazette, supersede
such Council for such period, not exceeding one year, as may be
specified in the order:
Provided that before making an order of supersession as
aforesaid under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), reasonable
opportunity shall be given to such Council to show cause why such
order of supersession should not be made:
Provided further that the period of supersession may be
extended for any further period or periods not exceeding six months
at a time in consultation with the Hill Areas Committee.
(2) When any District Council is superseded by an order under
sub-section (1),–
(a) ……………………….
(b) during the period of supersession of the Council, all powers and
duties conferred and imposed upon the Council by or under this
Act or any other law shall be exercised and performed by such
officer or authority as the Administrator may appoint in this
behalf;
(c) ……………………….
(d) ……………………….”
10. Mr. M. Devananda, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State respondents also relies upon para 49 of the
judgment and order dated 15.03.2024 of the Gauhati High Court
passed in WA No. 353 of 2023 wherein it was discussed with the
PIL No. 19 of 2024 Page 7 of 15
powers of the authority under Section 47(2)(b) of the Act of 1971 and
any other law. Therefore, according to them, the Committee has
passed a Resolution having the power under such provision of the Act
of 1971.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the third and fourth
respondents representing the Hill Areas Committee would also
reiterate the stand taken by the learned Additional Advocate General
by contending that the contention of the writ petitioner is totally
incorrect and baseless and further states that the said Resolution is
passed by the Committee in accordance with Section 47 of the Act of
1971. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition/PIL.
12. Heard the parties and perused the materials on record.
13. The petitioner, being the voter in the hill areas which
comes under the jurisdiction of Noney District and being aggrieved by
the said Resolution dated 14.10.2024 passed by the respondent Hill
Areas Committee, in the interest of the public, has filed the instant writ
petition/PIL before this Court on the ground that the Committee has
no power to pass such Resolution under the provisions of the Act of
1971. According to the petitioner, the tenure to the District Council is
for the period of 5 years under the provisions of the Act and can be
extended further for a period of 1 year.
PIL No. 19 of 2024 Page 8 of 15
14. The respondents, relying upon the provisions of Section
47(1) and (2), submits that Section 47(1) and (2) of the Act of 1971 will
apply for the appointment of the Administrator in consultation with Hill
Areas Committee when the District Council is superseded by an order
under Section 47 of the Act. According to petitioner, on the facts of this
case, they have not superseded the District Council. Hence, the said
provision is not applicable, as contended by the respondent herein.
15. According to the petitioner, the said Resolution passed
by the respondents No. 3 and 4 is not mandatory on the Government
to pass appropriate orders for administering the District Council in the
hill areas. On the ground, he has filed the writ petition challenging the
Resolution passed by the respondent No. 4. He also relies upon the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief of Army
Staff and Ors. -Vs- Major Dharam Pal Kukrety reported in (1985) 2
SCC 412 in support of his contention that when the authority passed
an order without jurisdiction, the same is open to be challenged under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, on the aforesaid
ground, the third and fourth respondent do not have the jurisdiction to
pass the Resolution and therefore, filed the instant writ petition to
challenge the said Resolution.
16. The learned Additional Advocate General has relied
upon Section 47(1) and (2) of the Act of 1971 by stating that in the
PIL No. 19 of 2024 Page 9 of 15
light of the said provision of the Act of 1971, the Committee has power
to pass the Resolution for appointment of the Administrator.
17. The said provisions of the Act of 1971 will apply only for
the supersession of District Councils by the Government. The said
provisions of the Act i.e. Section 47(1) will apply for appointment of
Administrator or officer in consultation with the Hill Areas Committee.
On the facts on hand is concerned, the tenure of the District Council
expires. After the said period expires, whether the consultation of the
Hill Areas Committee for appointment of an officer or interim
Administrator is contrary to the provision of the Act?
18. The learned Additional Advocate General mainly relies
upon the aforesaid provisions of Section 47 of the Act of 1971 and also
the decision rendered by the Division Bench in WA No. 353 of 2023
dated 15.03.2024.
19. We have anxiously considered the provisions of Section
47 (2)(b) of the said Act of 1971 which deals with the appointment of
an officer or Administrator. Section 47 of the Act defines as follows :
“Supersession of District Council. — (1) If, on receipt of a
report from the Deputy Commissioner or otherwise, the
Administrator is of opinion that–
(a) any District Council is not competent to perform, or
persistently makes default in the performance of, the
duties imposed on it by or under this Act or any other
law; orPIL No. 19 of 2024 Page 10 of 15
(b) any District Council exceeds or abuses its powers; or
(c) the financial position and credit position of any
District Council is seriously threatened; or
(d) a situation has arisen in which the administration of
any District Council cannot be carried on in accordance
with the provisions of this Act, the Administrator may,
by an order published, together with a statement of
reasons therefore, in the Official Gazette, supersede such
Council for such period, not exceeding one year, as may
be specified in the order:
Provided that before making an order of supersession as
aforesaid under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c),
reasonable opportunity shall be given to such Council to
show cause why such order of supersession should not
be made:
Provided further that the period of supersession may be
extended for any further period or periods not exceeding
six months at a time in consultation with the Hill Areas
Committee.
(2) When any District Council is superseded by an order
under sub-section (1),–
(a) all the members of the Council (including the
Chairman and Vice-Chairman thereof) shall, on such
date as may be specified in the order, vacate their offices
as such members without prejudice to their eligibility for
election or nomination under clause (d);
(b) during the period of supersession of the Council, all
powers and duties conferred and imposed upon the
Council by or under this Act or any other law shall be
exercised and performed by such officer or authority as
the Administrator may appoint in this behalf;
(c) all property vested in the Council shall, until it is
reconstituted, vest in the Central Government;
(d) before the expiry of the period of supersession,
election or nomination, as the case may be, of members
to the Council shall be held or made for the purpose of
reconstituting the Council.”
PIL No. 19 of 2024 Page 11 of 15
20. The decision of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High
Court passed in WA No. 353 of 2023 dated 15.03.2024 in paragraphs
No. 49 and 50 are extracted as follows :
“49. The present case falls within the
provision of Section 47(1)(d), because on account of
expiry of the term of the ADC, Ukhrul, a situation has
arisen in which the administration of the ADC, Ukhrul
cannot be carried out in accordance with the
provisions of this Act. As such, the State Government,
in exercise of powers under Section 47(2)(b), can
appoint an officer or authority as Administrator to
function and exercise the powers and duties conferred
and imposed upon the ADC, Ukhrul, under the Act of
1971 and any other law.
50. While making the above observations, we
are conscious of the fact that the learned Single Judge
of the Manipur High Court, vide judgment dated
02.03.2021 passed in WP(C) 613/2020 and other
connected writ petitions, has quashed the order dated
30.11.2020 issued by the State Government appointing
the Deputy Commissioners as Administrators of the
Autonomous District Councils to exercise all the
powers conferred and imposed upon the Councils,
treating it as illegal. However, we have reservations
about the said view of the learned Single Judge, but we
refrain ourselves from commenting on it since it is
informed that an intra-court appeal, against the
judgment dated 02.03.2021, is pending consideration
before the Division Bench of the High Court of
Manipur, at Imphal”
21. In the aforesaid judgment and order dated 15.03.2024,
the Division Bench observed that the State Government, in exercise
of powers under Section 47(2)(b), can appoint an officer or authority
PIL No. 19 of 2024 Page 12 of 15
as Administrator to function and exercise the powers and duties
conferred and imposed upon the ADC, Ukhrul, under the Act of 1971
and any other law. And that order has become final and the petitioner
is mainly agitating on the Resolution passed by the Hill Areas
Committee and considering the period expired, the consultation is not
mandatory. We are also of the view that when such provision is not
available, the consideration of passing the Resolution by the
Committee is not mandatory. But, in the decision of the Division Bench
rendered in WA No. 353 of 2023 dated 15.03.2024 the Hon’ble High
Court had observed that the Government can appoint the officer or the
Administrator in such circumstances. Therefore, we are of the view
that exercise of power of the Government to appoint the officer or
administrator cannot be taken away to appoint officer or Administrator.
22. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that he is being aggrieved by the second limb of the
Resolution dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Hill Area Committee
consisting of 20 members for each ADCs, to be selected amongst the
former ADC members/experts on local self Govt./eminent
persons/intellectuals and 2 (two) Govt. nominees of the District as a
temporary arrangement till the ADC election is conducted, as the
same is in contravention of the scheme of the “The Manipur (Hill
Areas) District Councils Act, 1971. Therefore, we are of the view that
in the absence of the provision of the Act, such Resolution passed by
PIL No. 19 of 2024 Page 13 of 15
the Hill Areas Committee, being statutory authority, may be
considered by the State Government as representation of the Hill
Areas Committee. In that circumstance, the petitioner also made a
request before this Court that the first limb of the Resolution passed
by the Committee to conduct the long pending election is concerned,
he states that Government may be directed to take appropriate
decision to conduct the election within the time frame.
23. Therefore, we are of the view that said Resolution of the
Hill Area Committee may be treated as a representation made by the
Committee to the State Government for the appointment of officer or
Administrator till election is conducted as per law. We make it clear
that it is for the State Government to consider the representation of
the Committee and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
It is needless to say that if there is any objection, it is open to the
petitioner to make their grievances before the respondents.
24. The petitioner insisted upon this Court to conduct the
election of the ADC within the stipulated period and therefore,
considering the said request, this Court directs the second respondent
to consider the said request of the petitioner to conduct the election of
the ADC within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a
copy of the order. In the meantime, the Government is directed to
consider and take decision for appointment of an Administrator or any
officer in accordance with law within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the
PIL No. 19 of 2024 Page 14 of 15
date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, there shall be an
order of status quo.
25. With the above directions and observations, the writ
petition is disposed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil
PIL No. 19 of 2024 Page 15 of 15
[ad_1]
Source link