Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 68 (MAN)

Loijing Loya Leishemba Lup v. State of Manipur

2021-11-09

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2021
JUDGMENT [1] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to complete the enquiry to examine various claims of the villages for inclusion to Loi community in the State of Manipur and in case enquiry constituted by the State Government is not completed within the stipulated period, a direction be issued to the concerned Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer to issue status certificate to the individual applicant if he/she is satisfied to the subjection of disabilities on inquiry in terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment and order dated 9.10.1996 passed in Civil Appeal No.14517 of 1996, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 523 , subject to the outcome of the Inquiry Committee. In the writ petition, the petitioners also sought direction on the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur to issue status certificate to the applicants of the already identified Sageis in respect of Wangoo village i.e. (i) Amom, (ii) Loitongbam, (iii) Sanasam, (iv) Khangembam, (v) Sagolsem, (vi) Yumnam, (vii) Moirangthem and (viii) Laishram in terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dated 9.10.1996. [2] The brief facts, as could be seen from the writ petition, are as follows:- (i) In pursuance of the President’s notification issued in the year 1956, which was based on the Administrative Report of the then Chief Commissioner of Manipur, Lois community was one of the seven Scheduled Castes communities in Manipur and as per the Chief Commissioner’s report, Lois have been treated as untouchable. Lois community mentioned in the President’s notification were the only people who resided in the villages, (1) Sekmai, (2) Chakpaphayeng, (3) Koutruk, (4) Laimaram, (5) Laimaram Khunou, (6) Ando, (7) Kwatha and (8) Khurkhul. The President’s notification and the Chief Commissioner’s Administrative Report cannot be challenged before any Court of Law as the said report was submitted after conducting a due enquiry and the inclusion or exclusion of the Loi villages to the President’s notification can be done only by a law passed by the Parliament. (ii) Many Loi villages were established during the reigns of several Kings for banishment of prisoners or social offenders. In order to identify the Loi villages in Manipur and their Loi population, in the year 1992, the State Government constituted an Inquiry Committee and the report of the Inquiry Committee was published in the year 1994 in which it was reported that there were 34 Loi villages in Manipur. In order to identify the Loi villages in Manipur and their Loi population, in the year 1992, the State Government constituted an Inquiry Committee and the report of the Inquiry Committee was published in the year 1994 in which it was reported that there were 34 Loi villages in Manipur. (iii) As the banishment of prisoners or social offenders to the Loi villages were not continued after the King Kullachanadra, the Sageis who were in existence during the reign of the King Kullachanadra in the Loi villages will be the Loi population as these Loi villagers have not mixed up with members of many other communities at their village or outside. As such the Inquiry Committee on Loi had identified the Loi Sageis of the 18 Loi villages. The Loi Sageis of the remaining 16 villagers could not be identified by the then Inquiry Committee as representatives of the said 16 villages had not appeared before the Committee. However, the Inquiry Committee left the matter open for further consideration as and when required. (iv) Out of the 18 Loi villages, 10 Loi villages were not mentioned in the President’s notification. As such, the then Inquiry Committee recommended the State Government to propose to the Central Government for amendment. However, the proposed amendment of the President’s notification is still pending. (v) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported at (1997) 2 SCC 523 : 1996 Legal Eagle (SC) 1615 (Shri Heikham Surchandra Singh v. The representatives of LOIs Kakching, Manipur), observed that though the High Court was right that until the amendment to the list has duly been made to the LOIs would be entitled to the status of Schedule Castes, before issuance of the certificate of status the competent officer should enquire whether the applicant is subjected to the disabilities which the scheduled castes have been suffering. All those who satisfy these criteria are entitled to the issuance of certificate until the amendment is duly made by the Parliament under Article 341(2) of the Constitution of India. (vi) After the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Law Department of the Government of Manipur had issued several clarifications in respect of the issuance of the status certificate. All those who satisfy these criteria are entitled to the issuance of certificate until the amendment is duly made by the Parliament under Article 341(2) of the Constitution of India. (vi) After the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Law Department of the Government of Manipur had issued several clarifications in respect of the issuance of the status certificate. In terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the subsequent clarifications/interpretations of the State Government’s Law Department, it can be concluded that if the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer is satisfied the applicant’s disabilities on enquiry, issuance of Schedule Caste certificate is under the obligation of the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer concerned until the amendment of President’s notification is duly made. (vii) In terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, apart from the Loi populations residing in eight villages mentioned in the President’s notification, the Deputy Commissioner had issued Scheduled Caste certificates in favour of the new Loi villages out of the 10 Loi villages which were verified as Loi Sageis by the then Inquiry Committee in 1992. Though the amendment of the President’s notification was not made, the Loi population of the seven Loi villages have enjoyed the facilities of Scheduled Castes, except (1) Wangoo, (2) Sugnu and (3) Waikhong and these three left out Loi villagers deserve to get the Scheduled Caste certificates in the same manner of the seven Loi villages. However, the concerned authorities, namely, Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer, Kakching and the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur/Sub-Divisional Officer, Moirang have not issued the status certificates to them till date. (viii) According to the petitioners, the inactions or reluctances of the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer concerned regarding the issuance of the status certificates to the Loi villages, namely (1) Wangoo, (2) Sugnu and (3) Waikhong is improper. It will be holistic if the concerned Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer issues the status certificates to them also in terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in respect of the seven villages. (ix) The left out 16 Loi villages had extremely desired to the return of their Loi status although their elders did not appear before the then Inquiry Committee of 1992 due to the lack of knowledge about the purpose of the Constitution for categorizing the Scheduled Castes community which was for uplifting the backward communities in the country. (ix) The left out 16 Loi villages had extremely desired to the return of their Loi status although their elders did not appear before the then Inquiry Committee of 1992 due to the lack of knowledge about the purpose of the Constitution for categorizing the Scheduled Castes community which was for uplifting the backward communities in the country. (x) On 6.4.2015, the All Kumbi Loi People’s Welfare Association submitted claims in respect of eight Sageis to the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur to issue the status certificates and the then Deputy Commissioner referred the claims to the State Government for a decision as to whether only eight Sageis identified by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Moirang would be categorized as Lois or a Committee at the Government Level should be constituted to identify those Sageis which fall under the category of Loi community of Kumbi area. (xi) In order to identify the Loi population of the other 16 Loi villages, the State Government had constituted an Inquiry Committee consisting of three members to examine various claims for inclusion to Loi community on 19.10.2016 and the term of the Committee was for a period of three months from the date of the notification. As the term of the Committee expired before completing the inquiry, the said Committee was re-constituted on 21.11.2016 and the re-constituted Committee was directed to submit a report within a period of three months from the date of notification. As the term of the second Committee also expired before completing the inquiry, new Committee was again re-constituted for a period three months vide notification dated 18.9.2018. Accordingly, the Director (OBC & SC) invited claims for inclusion to Loi community and various Loi villages which had not appeared before the Inquiry Committee of 1992 and several individuals have submitted their claims to the new Inquiry Committee for examination and identification. Pursuant to the notification of the Director (OBC & SC), affidavits of various Associations/Individuals, including the present petitioners have been submitted to the Committee for verification/identification of the claims. (xii) On 13.7.2019 and on 15.7.2019, the 14-Loi/SC Forum, Manipur requested the Director (OBC & SC) as well as the Hon’ble Chief Minister for early completion of the inquiry. However, the Government has not taken action on the representations till date. (xii) On 13.7.2019 and on 15.7.2019, the 14-Loi/SC Forum, Manipur requested the Director (OBC & SC) as well as the Hon’ble Chief Minister for early completion of the inquiry. However, the Government has not taken action on the representations till date. As the term of the third Committee also expired before completion of the inquiry, another six months time was extended vide notification dated 20.7.2019 and the extended term had also expired on 20.1.2020. (xiii) According to the petitioners, they have not received any summons from the Inquiry Committee till date and the claimants are still assuming that necessary proceedings of the Inquiry Committee does not start till date. Even if the ongoing inquiry cannot be completed due to many unavoidable circumstances, the Loi population residing in the left out 16 Loi villages are entitled and may be issued the status certificate by the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer concerned, if they are satisfied to the subjection of disabilities of the individual applicant on conducting due inquiry because it will not be just and proper to deprive longer the rights of the backward people. Hence, the writ petition. [3] The respondents 1 and 2 filed affidavit stating that till the expiry of the term of the Inquiry Committee constituted to examine various claims for inclusion to Loi community in the State of Manipur on 20.1.2020, no hearing of claims took place and the competent authority shall take a decision to the claims for inclusion in the Loi community after hearing and after perusal of all relevant records. [4] The third respondent field affidavit stating that in pursuance of the Inquiry Committee on Lois constituted by the Government of Manipur vide order dated 30.6.1994 for identification of Sageis constituting the Lois as per the inquiry report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Moirang, Bishnupur District, 22 Sageis/Clans of Kumbi, Bishnupur District and 42 Sageis/Clans of Moirang, Bishnupur District were found belonging to the Lois community in the recommendation which was approved vide order dated 8.7.1994 and further submitted for inclusion of 16 Sageis/Clans of Wangoo Lois village. It is stated that the finding of the inquiry has been submitted to the Director (OBC & SC) on 3.3.2021 for necessary action. It is stated that the finding of the inquiry has been submitted to the Director (OBC & SC) on 3.3.2021 for necessary action. [5] The fourth respondent filed affidavit stating that with regard to the claims of the people inhabitated in Thoubal District in the Loi community of the State, the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal conducted an inquiry through the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, Thoubal and as per the inquiry report, the claims for inclusion of 14 Sageis of Langathel Lois village and 16 Sageis of Shikhong Lois village are supported by the Langathel Lois Committee, Langathel and the Sikhong Peoples Welfare Association, Shikhong respectively as per their genealogy. [6] The fifth respondent filed affidavit stating that the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kakching conducted an inquiry through the concerned Sub-Divisional Offices of Kakching and Waikhong Sub-Divisions. The claims for inclusion of Wangkhen Sagei of Pallel Loi Community, Kakching and Takhellambam Sagei of Wangoo Loi community are also supported by the representatives of Lois of the two communities as per their genealogy. However, for other villagers, their status may be confirmed after the report of the Inquiry Committee constituted by the Government of Manipur. [7] Mr. N. Ibotombi, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted the Secretaries, Representatives of the village SC Loi Welfare Associations and individuals belonging to different Districts of Manipur have submitted their claims for issuance of Loi Scheduled Caste certificate to the indigenous Sageis/Clans of the respective villages since 2011 and the authority concerned has not taken any steps so far. The learned senior counsel further submitted that despite the Government of Manipur constituted the Inquiry Committee to examine the claims, no process was started and that the time framed for inquiry has, in fact, gone without any positive outcome even after the lapse of more than two decades in different instances. The learned senior counsel would submit that the petitioners are compelled to run from pillar to post for early completion of the inquiry. The learned senior counsel would submit that the petitioners are compelled to run from pillar to post for early completion of the inquiry. [8] Highlighting that the seven Loi villages who were enjoying the facilities of Scheduled Caste except three Loi villages, namely, Wangoo, Sugnu and Waikhong, who deserve to get the Scheduled Caste certificates in the same manner of the other Loi villages, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued that the Deputy Commissioner, Kakching/Sub-Divisional Officer, Kakching, the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur and the Sub- Divisional Officer, Moirang have not issued the status certificates till date to the applicants/claimants who have applied for the same. The learned senior counsel submits that the inaction of the concerned Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer qua the issuance of the status certificates to the aforesaid three Loi villages is improper and that the concerned Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer failed to act in terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment reported at (1997) 2 SCC 523 (supra). [9] The learned senior counsel next submitted that regarding 16 Loi villages which could not be identified by the then Inquiry Committee of 1992, the then Inquiry Committee had left the matter i.e. identification of the Loi population of the 16 Loi villages open for further consideration and that the left out 16 Loi villages had extremely desired to the return of their Loi status though their elders did not appear before the then Inquiry Committee of 1992 due to the lack of knowledge. He would submit that in order to identify the Loi population of the 16 Loi villages, the State Government constituted an Inquiry Committee consisting of three members to examine various claims for inclusion of Loi community. As the term of the said Inquiry Committee expired before completing the inquiry, the Committee was re-constituted three times and the last Committee’s term also expired on 20.1.2020 and that the petitioners could not able to ascertain the status of the progress of the inquiry, nor they received any summons or information for any proceedings from the Inquiry Committee till date. [10] The learned senior counsel for the petitioners then submitted that taking much time or undue delay or postpone many times without limit in the ongoing inquiry will not be a holistic towards the backward Loi community because it deprives the constitutional rights of those left out Loi communities which have not received the status certificates for a long time and as such, there should not be any delay in conducting the ongoing inquiry. The learned senior counsel submitted that as long as the inquiry is not completed, the Loi community of the left out Loi villages will not be able to get their constitutional rights. In fact, the left out Loi villages are the real Loi villages which were historically evidenced and recommended by the then Inquiry Committee of 1992. [11] Mr. N. Kumarjit, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that no hearing of claims took place till the expiry of the term of the Inquiry Committee constituted to examine various claims for inclusion in the Loi community in the State of Manipur and that the competent authority shall take decision to the claims for inclusion in the Loi community after hearing and after perusal of the relevant records. [12] Taking through the affidavit filed by the third respondent, Mr. N. Kumarjit, the learned Advocate General submitted that in pursuance of the Inquiry Committee on Lois constituted by the Government of Manipur for identification of Sageis constituting the Lois, as per the inquiry report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Moirang, Bishnupur District, 22 Sageis/Clans of Kumbi, Bishnupur District and 42 Sageis/Clans of Moirang, Bishnupur District were found belonging to the Lois community and further submitted for inclusion of 16 Sageis/Clans of Wangoo Lois village and that the said finding of the inquiry has been submitted to the second respondent for necessary action. [13] With regard to the claims of the people inhabited in Thoubal District in the Loi community of the Manipur State, the learned Advocate General submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal conducted an inquiry through the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, Thoubal and as per the inquiry report, the claims for inclusion of 14 Sageis of Langathel Lois village and 16 Sageis of Shikhong Lois village are supported by the Langathel Lois Committee, Langathel and the Sikhong Peoples Welfare Association, Shikhong respectively as per their genealogy. [14] The learned Advocate General further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Kakching conducted an inquiry though the concerned Sub- Divisional Officer of Kakching and Waikhong Sub-Divisions and the claims for inclusion of Wangkhem Sagei of Pallel Loi community, Kakching and Takhellambam Sagei of Wangoo Loi community are also supported by the representatives of Lois of the two communities as per their genealogy. The learned Advocate General submitted that insofar as the other villagers, their status may be confirmed after the report of the Inquiry Committee constituted by the Government of Manipur. [15] This Court considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record. [16] The grievance of the petitioners is that they are the left out 16 Loi villagers and the identification of the Loi Sageis of the left out 16 Loi villages have been undertaken by constituting an Inquiry Committee on 19.10.2016 by keeping a target for completion of the inquiry within three months, however, the ongoing inquiry cannot be completed till date. Since the ongoing inquiry has taken nearly 3 years 9 months and because of the non-completion of the inquiry, the Loi people of the left out 16 villages cannot get their status certificate till date. Hence, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition. [17] It appears that the first petitioner is a voluntary organization for the welfare of the backward community, particularly the Loi community residing within the Kumbi village and representing 90 Sageis. The second petitioner is also a voluntary organization for the welfare of the backward community, particularly the Loi community residing within the Moirang village and representing 42 Sageis. The third petitioner is a voluntary organization for the welfare of the backward community, particularly the Loi community residing within the Wangoo village and representing 16 Sageis. The fourth respondent is also a voluntary organization representing 14 Sageis residing within the Langathel village. The fifth petitioner is also a voluntary organization representing 16 Sageis residing within the Shikhong village. The petitioner Nos.6 and 7 are claiming their Sageis as Loi community from the Lois villages, namely Wangoo and Pallel in individual capacity. [18] “Loi” is the word in the Meitei language (Meiteilon) for the term Scheduled Caste. The fifth petitioner is also a voluntary organization representing 16 Sageis residing within the Shikhong village. The petitioner Nos.6 and 7 are claiming their Sageis as Loi community from the Lois villages, namely Wangoo and Pallel in individual capacity. [18] “Loi” is the word in the Meitei language (Meiteilon) for the term Scheduled Caste. The Loi is given to the indigenous and aboriginal people of Manipur in northeast India who refused to adopt Hinduism or were semi- Hinduised when the newly converted Manipuri King ordered all his subjects to adopt the religion. The Chakpa language is also known as Loi. Although Chakpa people are usually considered to be Loi, not all Loi are Chakpa (Huziwara, Keisuke (2020) “On the genetic position of Chakpa within Luish languages”). There are two kinds of Loi according to Parratt (Parratt, John ed. (1998). Notes on Meithei (Manipuri) beliefs and customs, Manipur) – (1) tributary tribes conquered by the Meitheis; (2) outcasted people from Meithei society who were banished to Loi villages. [19] In pursuance of the President’s notification issued in the year 1956, Lois is one of the seven Scheduled Caste communities in Manipur State and as per the then Commissioner’s Administrative Report, the Lois have been treated as untouchable for the following reasons: (i) The Lois are not allowed to enter the houses of the Meiteis (Manipur Hindus) (ii) Inter-marriage and co-dining between the Lois and the Meitei are prohibited. (iii) The main occupation of the Lois are cultivation and distilling of country liquor. (iv) The Lois worship goddess of nature. (v) The Lois cremate their deaths in this respect they are akin to the Hindus. [19] Many Loi villages were established during the reigns of several Kings for banishment of prisoners or social offenders and in order to identify the Loi villages, the State Government constituted an Inquiry Committee in the year 1992 and the Inquiry Committee’s Report was published in the Gazette in the year 1994, wherein 34 Loi villages in Manipur has been identified. Out of 34 Loi villages, Loi Sageis population of 18 Loi villages were identified and the remaining 16 villages could not be identified by the then Inquiry Committee, as representatives of the said 16 Loi villagers were not appeared before the Committee. However, the Inquiry Committee left the matter open for further consideration in respect of 16 Loi villages. Out of 34 Loi villages, Loi Sageis population of 18 Loi villages were identified and the remaining 16 villages could not be identified by the then Inquiry Committee, as representatives of the said 16 Loi villagers were not appeared before the Committee. However, the Inquiry Committee left the matter open for further consideration in respect of 16 Loi villages. [20] At this juncture, it would be pertinent to note the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Heikham Surchandra Singh (supra), wherein, it has been held as under: “Under these circumstances, though the High Court was right that until the amendment to the list has duly been made the Lois would be entitled to the status of Scheduled Castes, before issuance of the certificate of status, the competent officer should enquire whether the applicant is subjected to the disabilities which the Scheduled Castes have been suffering. All those who satisfy these criteria alone are entitled to the issuance of the certificate until the Amendment is duly made by the Parliament under Article 341(2) of the Constitution.” [21] The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Heikham Surchandra Singh (supra) is to issue status certificates by the concerned Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer, if they have found satisfaction to the sufferings of the applicants on conducting inquiry until the amendment of the President’s notification is duly made. [22] It is the say of the petitioners that out of the 18 Loi villages, 10 Loi villages namely (1) Kakching Khullen, (2) Kakching Khunou, (3) Sugnu, (4) Pallel, (5) Thanga, (6) Wangoo, (7) Kahamaran, (8) Moirang, (9) Waikhong, (10) Chairel were not mentioned in the President’s notification. Out of the aforesaid 10 Loi villages, the status certificates were issued in favour of only seven Loi villages namely (1) Kakching Khullen, (2) Kakching Khunou, (3) Pallel, (5) Chairel, (6) Thanga, (7) Moirang, except three Loi villages, namely (1) Wangoo, (2) Sugnu and (3) Waikhong. [23] The identification of the Loi Sageis of left out 16 Loi villages have been undertaken by constituting an Inquiry Committee on 19.10.2016 by keeping a target for completion of the inquiry within three months. However, the inquiry cannot be completed and second Committee was re-constituted and the re-constituted Committee has to submit its report within a period of three months from 21.11.2017. However, the inquiry cannot be completed and second Committee was re-constituted and the re-constituted Committee has to submit its report within a period of three months from 21.11.2017. As the term of second Committee also expired before completing the inquiry, third Committee was again re-constituted for a period of three months on 18.9.2018. Pursuant to the notification dated 18.9.2018, the second respondent invited claims for inclusion to Loi community and various Loi villages which had not appeared before the Inquiry Committee of 1992 and several other individuals have submitted their claims to the new Inquiry Committee for examination and identification. In pursuance of the notification dated 2.11.2018, the petitioners and various Associations have submitted their affidavits to the Committee for verification/identification of the claims. As the third term of the third Committee also expired before completion of the inquiry, again another term of six months was given on 20.7.2019 and the said extended period had also expired on 20.1.2020. It is thus clear that the process for the fourth round re-constituted Committee with the extension of timeline is going on unending. [24] At this juncture, the learned Advocate General submits that before the expiry of the extended period on 20.1.2020, no hearing of claims took place and the competent authority is ready to take decision on the claims for inclusion in the Loi community after hearing and after perusal of all the relevant records. [25] The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is also to direct the respondents to complete the inquiry to examine various claims of the Loi villages for inclusion to Loi community in the State of Manipur. The further grievance of the petitioners is that in case the inquiry constituted by the State Government is not completed within the stipulated time, the petitioners seeks direction on the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer to issue status certificate to the individual applicant if he/she is satisfied to the subjection of disabilities on inquiry in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above. [26] It appears that the time framed for the inquiry, admittedly, has gone without any positive outcome after a lapse of more than two decades and for one reason or the other, the inquiry was not completed till date. The concerned authorities have to do speedy exercise for early completion of the inquiry. [26] It appears that the time framed for the inquiry, admittedly, has gone without any positive outcome after a lapse of more than two decades and for one reason or the other, the inquiry was not completed till date. The concerned authorities have to do speedy exercise for early completion of the inquiry. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners are always ready to co-operate with the authority for early completion of the inquiry. [27] In terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Heikham Surchandra Singh (supra) and the subsequent interpretations and clarifications of the Law Department of the Manipur State, it is clear that until the amendment of the President’s notification is made by the Parliament, the concerned Deputy Commissioners/Sub-Divisional Officers have a discretion and are being the sole authority to issue the status certificate, if the applicants are satisfied to the subjection of disabilities of the individual applicant of any Loi villages or any other places within the State of Manipur on conducting due inquiry. [28] In the facts and circumstances of the given case, this Court finds that there is merit in the case of the petitioners claim to direct the respondent authorities to complete the inquiry within the stipulated period. This Court is also of the view that all those who satisfy the criteria indicated by the Inquiry Committee are only entitled to the issuance of the status certificate by the concerned authorities. [29] In the result, (a) The writ petition is allowed. (b) The respondent authorities are directed to complete the inquiry to examine various claims of the villages for inclusion of the left out Loi community in the State of Manipur within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (c) Upon identifying and inclusion, the concerned authorities are directed to issue the status certificate to the left out Loi community in the State of Manipur based on the individual application made by the each of the applicant, if the applicant satisfied the subjection of disabilities in terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Shri Heikham Surchandra Singh v. The representatives of LOIs Kakching, Manipur, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 523 : 1996 Legal Eagle (SC) 1615 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months thereafter. (d) The Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur is directed to issue status certificates to the applicants of the already identified Sageis in respect of Wangoo village i.e. (i) Amom, (ii) Loitongbam, (iii) Sanasam, (iv) Khangembam, (v) Sagolsem, (vi) Yumnam, (vii) Moirangthem and (viii) Laishram subject to the satisfaction of the criteria indicated by the Inquiry Committee and in terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Shri Heikham Surchandra Singh v. The representatives of LOIs Kakching, Manipur, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 523 : 1996 Legal Eagle (SC) 1615. (e) It is made clear that if the applicant has not satisfied the criteria indicated by the Inquiry Committee, the respondent authorities are prohibited in issuing the status certificates. (f) Since the issuance of the status certificate to the Lois community is pending for more than two decades, the concerned authorities are directed to utmost attention to this matter. (g) The representatives of various associations, including the petitioners and other individual applicants are directed to co-operate with the Inquiry Committee for early completion of the inquiry. (h) No costs.