Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 32 (MAN)

P. K. Maipak Rongmei v. Jonathan Pamei

2021-08-12

AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH, M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2021
JUDGMENT M.V. Muralidaran, J.:-- This writ appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.9.2020 passed in W.P(C) No.503 of 2020. 2. The private respondents are the appellants herein. The first respondent herein viz., Jonathan Pamei is the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner filed the writ petition seeking the following prayers: (i) To admit this writ petition and issue Rule Nisi; (ii) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction thereby, directing the Respondents to transfer the investigation of the criminal case under FIR No.43 (7) 2020 Nambol Police Station U/S 436/34 IPC and FIR No. 68(10) 2019 Nambol Police Station under Section 147/149/447/153(A)/322/34 IPC to a well qualified senior investigating officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Police Officer so that he could proceed with the investigation and make all attempts to book the culprits, who are involved in the crime in accordance with law; (iii) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction thereby, directing the Respondents to Rehabilitate and pay compensation to the Petitioner so as to enable him to resettle at his homestead land; (iv) In the interim, to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction thereby, directing the Respondents to take necessary steps for the Petitioner and his family to return to the village and resettle at their homestead land; (v) In the interim, to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction thereby, directing the Respondents provide necessary protection from the dangers of further attack by the Private Respondents and his parties; (vi) In the interim, to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction thereby, directing the private Respondents to allow the Petitioner and his family to return to the village and resettle at their homestead land; (vii) To issue any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. 3. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following observations:- “[6] The petitioner, in the light of the above decision, is entitled to work out his remedy before the competent and appropriate forum on his allegation that investigation is not to his satisfaction. The second prayer relates to compensation. The petitioner is at liberty to move the Deputy Commissioner concerned at the appropriate stage, for compensation if a case is made out. In so far as protection is concerned, he is entitled to make a representation. The petitioner’s counsel states that the petitioner has made a memorandum to the Director General of Police, Manipur on 9th October, 2019 at Annexure-A/2. The Director General of Police, Manipur is directed to deal with the memorandum himself or may direct the concerned Superintendent of Police to cause an inquiry and deal with the request for protection if there is a just or reasonable cause. [7] The first relief is declined. In respect of the prayer Nos.2 and 3 for compensation, the petitioner should approach the competent authority at the appropriate stage. In so far as the protection is concerned, the same stands disposed of with the direction as indicated above. [8] With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 4. Assailing the aforesaid directions of the learned Single Judge, the first and foremost submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the writ petition has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge without giving an opportunity to the private respondents. He submits that any order passed behind the back of the appellants, who are really affected thereby, without giving any opportunity, cannot be given effect to. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the learned Single Judge indirectly acknowledged the alleged wrong facts pleaded by the writ petitioner in the writ petition and if the said averments are not contradicted with the truth, the wrong facts pleaded by the writ petitioner will be on record as true and correct facts, affecting the appellants. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the learned Single Judge indirectly acknowledged the alleged wrong facts pleaded by the writ petitioner in the writ petition and if the said averments are not contradicted with the truth, the wrong facts pleaded by the writ petitioner will be on record as true and correct facts, affecting the appellants. 6. The leaned counsel next submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the memorandum of the writ petitioner was made to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Manipur and not to any other competent authority and as such, the learned Single Judge cannot give directions to consider the memorandum submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Minister. According to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the only option left to the writ petitioner in respect of the said memorandum is for the Hon’ble Chief Minster to refer the same to the competent authority for appropriate action and even in that case also, an opportunity of being heard should be given to the other parties to contradict the same and put forth their case. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that the writ petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary party, inasmuch as one Gaigangpu Golmei, whose name appeared in the FIR No.68(10)2019, was not made as a party to the writ proceedings. 8. The learned counsel then submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to verify the fact that there is no church at the Mabam Kabui village and as such there is no question of burning down the church and that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the writ petitioner is trying to politicise the occurrence by adding the colour of religion into it to create communal tension for his personal gain. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that any observations and directions of this Court, even though the same are based on wrong and misleading facts, are binding and have precedential value to all the Subordinate Courts/Competent Authority and as such verification of the contentions made in the writ petition by the appellants by filing counter-affidavits need to be appreciated for proper adjudication. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the appellants are aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and prayed for setting aside the same. 10. On the other hand, the writ petitioner case is that the appellants are the villagers of Maibam Kabui Khul, Naorem Kabui Village, Chingphu Kabui Village and Langompokpi Kabui Village, Brishnupur District, Manipur, who had formed an unruly mob under their leadership and on 7 10 2019, demolished the dwelling house of the writ petitioner, a church building and banished the writ petitioner along with his family members from their house and village arbitrarily. 11. The further case of the writ petitioner is that on the fateful day, apart from demolishing the dwelling house and the church building, the appellants and their men physically assaulted the writ petitioner and his wife and son. In this connection, the writ petitioner lodged an FIR No.68(10) 2019 before the Nambol Police Station against the appellants herein, however, the appellants were not arrested and no action has been taken till date. 12. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that on 9.10.2019, the writ petitioner submitted a memorandum to the Hon’ble Chief Minister by marking copy to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), the Director General of Police, the Superintendent of Police, Bishnupur and the Officer-in-Charge of Nambol Police Station seeking their intervention. In the meanwhile, the appellants obtained anticipatory bail and they had also lodged a counter-complaint against the writ petitioner’s son in FIR No.69(10)2019. 13. Since there was slow progress in the investigation, he had submitted another memorandum dated 15.11.2019 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister with a copy to the other officials requesting for providing rehabilitation and resettlement and to punish the offenders. He would submit that pending FIR, some unknown miscreants suspected to be members of Maibam Kabui Khul burnt the writ petitioner’s dwelling house. For the said incident, the writ petitioner lodged a complaint before the Nambol Police Station and the case was registered in FIR No.43(7)2020, however, there is no progress in the investigation. He would submit that pending FIR, some unknown miscreants suspected to be members of Maibam Kabui Khul burnt the writ petitioner’s dwelling house. For the said incident, the writ petitioner lodged a complaint before the Nambol Police Station and the case was registered in FIR No.43(7)2020, however, there is no progress in the investigation. Since at present the writ petitioner and his family members are taking temporary shelter at the house of his relatives and the first respondent being the daily wage worker and they were not allowed to be reinstated at their homestead land and the appellants compelled the first respondent and his family members to live in the street and starve, he had filed the writ petition seeking directions on the respondents. 14. We have considered the submissions raised by the counsel for the appellant and also perused the materials available on record. 15. At the outset, it is to be mentioned that in the writ petition, the first respondent prayed for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to transfer the investigation of the criminal case in FIR No.43(7)2020 and FIR No.68(10)2019 to a well qualified senior investigating officer and direction on the respondents to rehabilitate and pay compensation to the first respondent. In the writ petition, the first respondent also prayed for interim direction directing the respondents to take necessary steps for the first respondent and his family to return to the village and resettle at their homestead land and direction on the respondents to provide necessary protection from the dangers of further attack by the appellants and also direction on the appellants to allow the first respondent and his family to return to the village and resettle at their homestead land. In effect, in the writ petition, the first respondent has made seven prayers. 16. As far as the prayer for transfer of the investigation is concerned, the learned Single Judge directed the petitioner to work out his remedy before the competent and appropriate forum. Anent the prayer for compensation is concerned, the learned Single Judge has given liberty to the petitioner to move the Deputy Commissioners concerned at the appropriate stage. In so far as the prayer for protection is concerned, the learned Single Judge observed that the writ petitioner is entitled to make a representation. Anent the prayer for compensation is concerned, the learned Single Judge has given liberty to the petitioner to move the Deputy Commissioners concerned at the appropriate stage. In so far as the prayer for protection is concerned, the learned Single Judge observed that the writ petitioner is entitled to make a representation. Thus, it is clear from the order of the learned Single Judge that no positive direction to the authorities was given. 17. Further, it is seen from the impugned order that while observing so, on the representation of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner has already made a memorandum to the third respondent herein – Director General of Police dated 9.10.2019, the Director General of Police was directed to deal with the memorandum himself or direct the concerned Superintendent of Police to cause an inquiry and deal with the request for protection, if there is a just or reasonable cause. We find that such a direction issued by the learned Single Judge would prejudice the appellants herein, inasmuch as such order was passed without notice to the appellants herein. 18. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellants ‘argued that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the memorandum dated 9.10.2019 was made to the Hon’ble Chief Minister and not to any other competent authority and as such, the learned Single Judge cannot give directions to consider the memorandum dated 9.10.2019 submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Minister. 19. On a perusal of the memorandum dated 9.10.2019, we find that though the said memorandum has been addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, copies of the same were also forwarded/addressed to the (i) Local MLA; (ii) The DGP, Manipur; (iii) The SP, Bishnupur; (iv) SDPO, Nambol and (v) Guard File. The Director General of Police has been arrayed as second respondent and the Superintendent of Police has been arrayed as third respondent in the writ petition. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the order of the learned Single Judge, directing the Director General of Police to deal with the memorandum himself or, in turn, direct the Superintendent of Police to cause an inquiry and deal with the request for protection. 20. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the order of the learned Single Judge, directing the Director General of Police to deal with the memorandum himself or, in turn, direct the Superintendent of Police to cause an inquiry and deal with the request for protection. 20. The main contention of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge indirectly acknowledged the alleged contentions of the first respondent and without giving the appellants an opportunity to rebut the same, has issued the said direction and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. When the writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, the learned Single heard the submissions of the learned Government Advocate, who raised an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition qua the prayer for transferring the investigation Considering the arguments of the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge observed that as far as the prayer for transfer of investigation is concerned, the writ petitioner has to work out his remedy before the competent and appropriate forum on his allegation that the investigation is not to his satisfaction. 21. Though while disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has not given an opportunity to the appellants herein, the direction issued in the writ petition by the learned Single Judge would not cause any serious prejudice to them, inasmuch as no positive direction was given by the learned Single Judge and the direction to the Director General of Police to deal with the memorandum himself or, in turn, direct the Superintendent of Police to cause an inquiry and deal with the request for protection, would necessitate such authority dealing with the memorandum to proceed only in accordance with law not otherwise, which may include hearing all parties concerned, if it is so contemplated under law. 22. That apart, since the plea of the writ petitioner is that he has been ostracized, assaulted and his dwelling house was burnt merely on religious grounds, which allegations cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings in a writ petition and are disputed questions of fact, this Court does not intend to delve into the merits of the allegations leveled by both the writ petitioner and the appellants herein. It is for the official respondents to look into the grievances of the writ petitioner as well as the appellants and redress the same in accordance with law. It is for the official respondents to look into the grievances of the writ petitioner as well as the appellants and redress the same in accordance with law. Since the learned Single Judge has not issued any positive direction affecting the alleged rights of the appellants and the learned Single Judge only directed the Director General of Police to consider the memorandum dated 9.10.2019 or to direct the Superintendent of Police to inquire and deal with the same, such a direction would not cause any prejudice to the appellants. We find no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge and the writ appeal therefore fails. 23. However, in the interest of justice and considering the fact that the direction in the writ petition was passed during September, 2020 and till date, according to the writ petitioner, no order was communicated to him, the authority concerned, Director General of Police, is requested to consider the said memorandum of the writ petitioner in the light of the observations hereinabove, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 24. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.