IT News
Imphal, July 05:
The Manipur High Court has directed the Manipur Lokayukta not to pressurise the Manipur Government in relation to the recommendation regarding MSPCL.
It should be mentioned that on February 7, 2022, the Manipur Lokayukta recommended to the state government that the MSPCL Managing Director be removed from his position in response to a complaint lodged against the MD, MSPCL, and some other MSPCL employees.
One Th. Nirosh Singh filed a complaint dated 25-09-2020 in the Manipur Lokayukta’s Office, alleging that the contract work for the construction of a 2×1 MVA 33/11 KV Sub-Station at Chakpikarong along with the associated 33 KV line and related civil works on turn-key basis under NLCPR was executed by M/S Shyama Power (India) Pvt. Ltd. under work order dated 25-09-2009 with a total contract amount of Rs.9,45,80,605/-(Rupees nine crore forty-five lakh eighty thousand six rupees One hundred and five) only from December 2009 to December, 2015 and that the said firm failed to supply two transformers. The Power Department put in the transformers somehow, or rather, without supplying the said articles, and thus the company and the concerned officials of the Department colluded intentionally and willfully to mislead the general public by manipulating the public funds in their pocket. In the said complaint, it was also alleged that the company executed only 4 km. LILO (2+2) as against 45 kms which has been sanctioned by the Government of India under and therefore, a balance amount of Rs. 5,18,98,440/-seems to they have been misappropriated.
Following receipt of the complaint, the Manipur Lokayukta ordered a preliminary investigation into the allegations in the complaint. On February 7, 2022, the Manipur Lokayukta recommended to the state government that the MSPCL Managing Director be removed from his position. It was recommended that the function and duties of the said post be delegated to a state government official until the investigation was completed.
The MSPCL Managing Director has challenged the Lokayukta Manipur’s recommendation dated 7.02.2022 in Manipur’s high court (under the writ petition no. 168 of 2022).
When the case is still on the court, various attempts to mislead the MSPCL as well as the Lokayukta were traced. As a result, the MSPCL had filed an additional case in the High Court, challenging the recommendation. Even the petitioner’s signatures have been discovered to be faked.
Thiyam Nirosh’s signature in the complaint letter to the Manipur Lokayukta differs from his signature in the RTI application he filed with the MSPCL earlier. A mobile number 8974002604 identified by truecaller as belonging to one Manihar Sarangthem was written in a complaint application to the Manipur Lokayukta, which differed from the mobile number 9862206077 written in an RTI application.
During the course of hearing, held on 21-05-2022, 01-06-2022, 02-06-2022, 06-06-2022 &08-06-2022learned senior counsel appearing for the MSPCL submitted that the Manipur Lokayukta derives its jurisdiction for ordering an investigation and making appropriate recommendations only on the basis of a valid complaint and that the Lokayukta has no power to order an investigation and make recommendations suo motu. It has also been submitted that in the present case, there is no valid complaint before the Manipur Lokayukta inasmuch as the signatures appended to the complaint dated filed before the Manipur Lokayukta and on the basis of which an investigation has been ordered by the Manipur Lokayukta are not the genuine signatures of the complainant and those signatures have been forged and fabricated by another person other than the complainant. Accordingly, it has been submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Manipur Lokayukta had transgressed its jurisdiction in passing the impugned judgement and order and that the said impugned judgement and order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quash and set aside as having been passed without any jurisdiction.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the MSPCL further submitted that despite the comments furnished by the competent authorities in connection with the preliminary enquiry report in connection with the allegations made in the said complaint case No. 2 of 2020 as being unfounded and baseless, the Manipur Lokayukta passed the impugned judgement and order dated 07-02-2022 in the said complaint case.
It should be noted that on 01-12-2021, the competent authority of the Power Department submitted in a letter to the Director (Inquiry) of Manipur Lokayukta that after reviewing the Joint Inspection team report, there are no lapses made by the executing agency namely, Electricity Department/Manipur State Power Company Limited in the execution of the project – Construction of 2×1 MVA, 33/11 KV Sub-Station at Chakpikarong along with the associated 33 kV line and related civil works on turn-key basis with assistance from the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region under Non-Lapsable Central Pool of Resources (NLCPR) and allegations made by the complainant, Thiyam Nirosh Singh in the Hon’ble Lokayukta Manipur are unfounded and baseless.
According to the learned senior counsel, findings against the petitioners and the basis on which further investigation had been ordered are found to be summarised at paras 6 to 9 of the impugned judgement and order. It has been submitted that a cursory reading and minute examination of the said findings of the Manipur Lokayukta along with the comments submitted by the MSPCL as well as by the competent authorities and also the clarification given by the Department of Planning, Government of Manipur, the findings against the petitioner are only the alleged irregularities and not a case of misappropriation of funds, gratification or otherwise, and accordingly, the order for further investigation under Section 20 (3) read with Sections 28 and 32 of the Lokayukta Act is not only highly misconceived and misplaced but the same was also in a transgression of its jurisdiction.
The learned senior counsel also submitted that the ingredients required for the commission of the offences under Section 7(B)/13 PC Act and Section 120-B/34 IPC are entirely absent in the findings given at paras 6 to 9 of the impugned judgement and order, and thus it has been submitted that having regard to the provisions contained in Section 50 of the Lokayukta Act, as well as the jurisdiction of the Manipur Lokayukta as envisaged under Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act.
In an unprecedented move, the Manipur Lokayukta has requested an action taken report from the appropriate state government officials regarding its recommendation made in paragraph 25(D) of the contested judgement and order for not allowing the current petitioner to serve as MD, MSPCL and transferring out two other officers in the Manipur Lokayukta’s subsequent proceedings in relation to the matter.
On February 17, 2022, Dr. Shailesh Kumar Chourasia, the power secretary, wrote to the deputy registrar of Manipur Lokayukta, stating that such recommendations are not feasible and assuring him of full cooperation throughout the investigation.
The Manipur Lokayukta issued a number of orders directing the concerned state government officials to appear personally before it, demanding justification for rejecting such recommendations and pressuring state officials to implement such recommendations if they failed to provide justification.
In an order dated 04-07-2022, the High Court of Manipur of Manipur instructed the Manipur Lokayukta not to compel or direct the State Government officials to carry out or implement such a recommendation.
