Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 39 (GAU)

Thokchom Ongbi Mani Devi v. State of Manipur

2008-01-17

KETULHOU MERUNO

body2008
JUDGMENT K. Meruno, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H. Raghumani Singh, learned Addl. GA appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned CGSC appearing for the respondent No. 4. 2. In this writ petition, a very serious question is involved, i.e. the custodial death of one Thokchom Ingocha Singh. It is alleged that the personnels of the 7th Assam Rifles took away the said Thokchom Ingocha Singh on 30.10.2001 and thereafter he was killed by the said personnels of the 7th Assam Rifles. 3. Counter on behalf of the respondent No. 4, i.e. the Commanding Officer, 7th Assam Rifles, has been filed. In the counter, the respondent No. 4 has denied all the allegations made in the writ petition and states that the said Thokchom Ingocha Singh was killed in an encounter and his dead body was handed over to the Police. Accordingly, an FIR was filed being FIR No. 98(10)01 YPK-P.S., Under Section 400/309/307 IPC, 25(1-B) Arms Act and 13 UA (P) Act was registered by one Shamlal of 7th Assam Rifles. It is also stated that some arms and ammunition were recovered from the deceased. 4. A preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition has also been raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4, in view of the fact that the respondent No. 4 is working under the Union of India, IG, Assam Rifles and DG, Assam Rifles all under the Ministry of Home Affairs who are the necessary parties in this writ petition have not been impleaded, and as such this writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at length. The first and primary question before this Court is whether the Union of India and its subsidiaries are the necessary parties in the present writ petition. The present writ petition is a petition asking for compensation for the custodial death of the said Thokchom Ingocha Singh. In this connection, Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned CGSC appearing for the respondent No. 4 has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court as reported in(1997) 1 SCC 84 in the case of Ranjeet Mai v. General Manager, Northern Railway and Anr. In this connection, Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned CGSC appearing for the respondent No. 4 has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court as reported in(1997) 1 SCC 84 in the case of Ranjeet Mai v. General Manager, Northern Railway and Anr. wherein it has been held that Union of India is a necessary party to be impleaded in the writ petition by employees challenging removal from service by Railway Administration. 6. Another case relied upon by Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned CGSC is a case of this Court reported in 1995 (2) GLT 291 in the case of Shri Jitendra Nath Barthakur v. The Chairman, Assam Co-operative Jute Mills Ltd. and also reported case of this Court as reported in 2000(2) GLT 522 in the case of Ashem Bira Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors. Relying upon the said decisions, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 prays that this writ petition may be dismissed for non-joinder of important necessary parties. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondents, I am of the considered view that the respondent No. 4 is only a limb of the Union of India who is also acting under the command of the DGAR, IGAR, Ministry of Home Affairs including the Ministry of Defence which are all under the Union of India and therefore, taking the ratio of the cited cases, the Union of India is a necessary party. Therefore non-joinder of necessary party, the party that will be affected as if relief is granted is not before this Court and therefore the reliefs sought in this writ petition cannot be granted. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is without merit for non-joinder of the important necessary parties, like the Union of India and others and the present writ petition is therefore dismissed. 8. Before parting with this file, as ordered by this Court on 25.2.2004, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Manipur East has submitted the report on 21.3.2007. Since the writ petition has been dismissed for non-joinder of important necessary parties, I make no observation on the said enquiry report. Petition dismissed