JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. R.K. Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the PIL and Shri S. Rupachandra, learned A.S.G. 2. PIL No.7 of 2014 has been filed for the following reliefs: (i) Call for the records of the case 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. And, after hearing them your Lordship may make the rule absolute. (ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus/Certiorari or a writ or direction of like nature directing the Respondents to honour the commitment made to the people of Manipur and implement the Manipur Merger Agreement, 1949, particularly Article-VIII(3). (iii) Pass such order and/or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness the humble Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” The petitioner in this PIL alleges non fulfilment of certain promises made by the Union of India under the Merger Agreement signed between the then Maharaja of Manipur and the Advisor to the Government of India on 21.9.1949. 3. Brief history of the case is that according to the Royal Cronicle of Manipur, the history of Manipur dates back to 33 AD and was ruled by Kings. The fist King of Manipur was Lord Ibudhou Pakhangba and thereafter his dynasty continued to rule the kingdom till British, ruling the mainland India, defeated the Manipuri King in 1891 war. Though the King was defeated in the War, the British declared Manipur as a Protectorate State under the Queen of England and consequently it was not annexed to the British empire. After India became independent, Manipur became an independent kingdom once again and under the Manipur Constitution Act, 1947 a Legislative Assembly and a Council of Ministers started functioning with Maharaja of Manipur as the head of the State. The reign of Maharaja came to an end when he entered into an Merger Agreement with the Union of India on 21.9.1949 which came into effect from 15.10.1949. The reign of Maharaja came to an end when he entered into an Merger Agreement with the Union of India on 21.9.1949 which came into effect from 15.10.1949. The Merger Agreement contains 9(nine) Articles and the relevant Article in respect of which present PIL has been filed is Article VIII(1) which is quoted below: “.............The Government of India also undertakes to make suitable provisions for the employment of Manipuris in the various branches of Public Services; and in every way encourage Manipuris to join them. They also undertake to preserve various laws, customs and conventions prevailing in the State pertaining to the social, economic and religious life of the people.” The grievance of the petitioner, in this PIL, is that the Union of India has not kept its promise made under the above Article contained in the Merger Agreement and consequently a prayer is made in the PIL to direct the Union of India to implement the Merger Agreement particularly the above Article. 4. Miscellaneous (PIL) No.7 of 2015 has been filed by Union of India questioning the maintainability of the PIL in view of the Article 363(1) of the Constitution of India. Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned ASG, with reference to the above provision, submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute as raised in the PIL and therefore the PIL is not maintainable. Mr. RK Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in reply, submitted that there is no dispute raised by the petitioner in the writ petition and the prayer is only for implementation of a particular clause of the Merger Agreement and therefore Article 363(1) of the Constitution of India has no application. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we find from the averments made in the PIL that the allegations made therein is with regard to non implementation of Article VIII of the Merger Agreement by the Union of India. The question as to whether the promise made under the said Article has been implemented or not is itself a dispute; otherwise there was no occasion on the part of the petitioner to file this PIL. Once it is considered to be a dispute, this Court lacks jurisdiction in deciding such dispute in view of the provision contained in Article 363(1) of the Constitution of India. Once it is considered to be a dispute, this Court lacks jurisdiction in deciding such dispute in view of the provision contained in Article 363(1) of the Constitution of India. In this connection, reference may also be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nawab Usmanali Khan vs. Sagar Mal reported in AIR 1965 SC 1798 . Though the facts are completely different, the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment has full application in the present case with reference to Article 363 of the Constitution of India. Similar view has also been expressed by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of The State of Rajathan & Anr vs. Sawai Teijsinghji Maharaja of Alwar reported in AIR 1969 Rajasthan 52 (V 56 C 12). Since we hold that allegation of non implementation of certain promise under the Merger Agreement is itself a dispute, in view of the Article 363 of the Constitution of India, this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the dispute. 6. Accordingly, we not only allow the Miscellaneous Application but also having held that this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the dispute, dismiss the PIL. Both the MC(PIL) No.7 of 2014 and the PIL 7 of 2014 are disposed of.