This is the second time the High Court has dismissed Manipur Lokayukta petition as being without merit
IT News:
Imphal, May 31:
The Manipur High Court dismissed MC(WP) No. 93 of 2022 filed by Manipur Lokayukta in connection with the case related to MSPCL. MSPCL has challenged the Manipur Lokayukta recommendation dated 7thFebrurary, 2022 in Manipur High court stating allegations made by Manipur Lokayukta against MSPCL for misappropriation of funds are baseless.
Officials of MSPCL filed three writ petitions to the high court, namely WP(C) No. 161 of 2022, WP(C) No. 168 of 2022, and WP(C) No. 171 of 2022, challenging the judgement dated 07-02-2022 passed by the Manipur Lokayukta in Complaint Case No. 2 of 2020.
The said three writ petitions were listed before a Division Bench of the High Court consisting of the Chief Justice and Justice M.V. Muralidaran, but the registry was directed to list the matters before a Single Bench on 09-03-2022 by an order dated 07-03-2022 passed by the said Division Bench in the aforesaid three writ petitions.
The Manipur Lokayukta’s Office filed the present application on 10-03-2022, and the matter was heard on 12-04-2022.The present application was dismissed by order dated 18-04-2022 on the grounds that the Division Bench of this court consisting of the Chief Justice had already passed a judicial order on 07-03-2022 in the connected writ petitions directing for listing the said writ petitions before a Single Bench of this court,
“this court is bound by the said order and that if any order is passed by this court as prayed for by the applicant in the present application,such an order will be null and void because this court lacks the jurisdiction or power to issue an order superseding or overriding an order issued by a Division Bench of this court”, the court said.
By filing Writ Appeal No. 62 of 2022, the Manipur Lokayukta challenged the said order dated 18-04-2022 issued by this court in the present application.The Appellate Court granted the Writ Appeal in an order dated 17-05-2022. The Appellate Court clarified in the said order that the earlier order dated 07-03-2022 for listing the aforementioned three writ petitions before a Single Bench was passed after being informed that there was no necessity in terms of Rule 3(1) of Chapter IV-A of the Manipur High Court Rules, 2019 for listing the writ petitions filed against the orders of the Lokayukta, Manipur before a Division Benchand that the said order would not impair or impede the learned Single Judge’s right to exercise power under Rule 3(1)(d) of Chapter IV-A of the High Court Rules, 2019, if he so desired.The Appellate Court also stated that it is always open to a learned Single Judge to refer the matter to a Division Bench for consideration if he believes it warrants such consideration.
With the aforementioned clarifications and observations, the Appellate Court reversed the order under appeal and remanded the case to this court for further consideration on its own merits.
During the hearing, M. Rarry, learned counsel for the Lokayukta, stated that under Rule 3(1)(d) of Chapter IV-A of the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019, a Single Bench has the authority to refer any application to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for placement before a Division Bench due to the importance or complexity of the case.
The Manipur Lokayukta passed the impugned order solely in the public interest, and there will be wide ramifications or impact in the public interest if this court interferes with the impugned judgement and order of the Manipur Lokayukta in the connected writ petitions.
The learned counsel adamantly argued that the facts and law involved in the related writ petitions are extremely complex and of great public importance.
As a result, the learned counsel argued that the related writ petitions are appropriate cases for referring to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for placement before a Division Bench.
Alternatively, the learned counsel argued that, regardless of the importance or complexity of the case, this court should refer the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for a decision on whether the writ petitions should be heard by a Division Bench or not, because the Hon’ble Chief Justice is the master of roster and the final authority to decide the matter.
Mr. Gurukrishnakumar Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing for MSPCL, contended that the power conferred on a Single Judge under the provisions of Rule 3(1)(d) of Chapter IV-A of the HC Rules for referring any application to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for placement before a Division Bench having regard to the importance or complexity of the case is discretionary, and that the learned Single Judge can exercise such power during the course of the proceedings.The learned counsel also contended that no party in the litigation has the locus or right to demand or insist before the learned Single Judge that an application be referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for referral to a Division Bench.
It has been submitted that the Manipur Lokayukta has not filed any counter affidavits in the connected writ petitions raising any important or complex issues, and that the connected writ petitions have yet to be taken up by this court for consideration of the merits of the cases.
The learned senior counsel has also submitted that after reading the averments made by the applicant in the present application line by line, no averments have been made by the applicant in the present application to make out a case that there are important or complex issues involved in the connected writ petitions. In the view of the above the learned senior counsel has submitted that the current application is erroneous and unsustainable.
The learned senior counsel finally submitted that the learned counsel appearing for the applicant’s contention that the proceedings of the connected writ petitions will be in the nature of a criminal proceeding is based on assumptions and such contentions are not sustainable, particularly since this court has yet to take up the connected writ petitions for consideration on merit.
It has also been argued that, even if such arguments are correct, they cannot be used to refer the related writ petitions to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for placement before a Division Bench in accordance with Rule 3(1)(d) of the HC Rules.
Indeed, the learned senior counsel argued that the current application is without merit and should be rejected outright.
Upon hearing both parties, the court observed that the proceedings in the connected writ petitions are in the nature of criminal proceedings and that there will be no intra-court appeal available to the parties in the present case. This court is of the view that such contentions have been made solely on the basis of assumptions by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and that even if there is a possibility of non-availability of intra-court appeal, that may not be a ground for referring the connected writ petitions for hearing by a Division Bench within the ambit of Rule 3(1)(b) of the HC Rules and this court is not inclined to entertain the present application on this ground. As a result, this court finds no merit in the present application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
