The High Court allowed applications to restore a writ petition dismissed for default, accepting the explanation that the former counsel had died without disclosing it earlier. The main petition was posted for final hearing.
Restoration of Writ Petition No. 564 of 2017 allowed; delay condoned; posting for final hearing directed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Item No.13-14
JOHN TELEN KOM
Digitally signed by JOHN TELEN KOM Date: 2021.11.18 10:20:31 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
MC(WP(C)) No.223 of 2019 With MC(WP(C)) No. 224 of 2019
(Through video conference)
…. Applicants
- Versus –
2
.... Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN
15.11.2021
[1] Heard Mr.TH. Babloo, learned counsel for the applicants; Mr.Aheibam Bheiga Meitei, learned counsel junior to Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned counsel for the State respondents and Mr. KH. Shanta, learned counsel for the 8th respondent.
[2] Mr. TH. Babloo, learned counsel for the applicant in both the applications represented that the writ petition in WP(C) No.564 of 2017 was dismissed by this Court for non appearance of the learned counsel by namely Mr.Y. Rameshchandra since the earlier counsel was
3
died and hence due to non- appearance in the writ petition at the time of hearing, the writ petition was dismissed for default. Therefore, this Court was not informed about the death of the learned counsel Mr.Y. Ronnelchandra but due to non appearance this Court dismissed the WP(C) No. 564 of 2017 for non-prosecution on 3.12.2018.
[3] Later, on knowing the same, the writ petitioners have engaged the present counsel Mr. TH. Babloo and he has filed two applications being MC(WP(C)) No.223 of 2019 for condoning the delay of 228 days in filing the restoration petition and MC(WP(C)) No.224 of 2019 for restoring the writ petition filed in WP(C) No.564 of 2017 which was dismissed for default on 03.12.2018. Mr. Aheibam Bheiga Meitei, learned counsel junior to Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Addl. AG has made no objection whereas Mr. KH. Shanta, learned counsel for the 8th respondent is strongly objecting since no proper reason has been given. Anyhow he has not filed any counter affidavit.
[4] It is admitted fact that the earlier counsel by namely Mr. Mr.Y. Ronnelchandra who appeared in WP(C) No.564 of 2017 was died which fact has not been disclosed either by 8th respondent or the State respondents to this Court at the time of hearing of this case. Therefore, without knowing the real factual death of the earlier counsel, this Court has dismissed the writ petition for default due to non appearance of the petitioner or his counsel.
4
[5] Therefore, though the learned counsel appearing for the 8th respondent is strongly objecting and the counsel appearing for the State made no objection, this Court is inclined to allow both the applications only on the ground that the earlier counsel by namely Mr. Y. Ronnelchandra, the learned counsel who appeared in WP(C) No. 564 of 2017 was died and the same was not disclosed before this at the time of hearing. Therefore, both the applications being MC(WP(C)) No. 223 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No.224 of 2019 are allowed.
[6] Mr. KH. Shanta, learned counsel for the 8th respondent seeks permission of this Court to file counter affidavit in WP(C) No. 564 of 2017 on behalf of the 8th respondent. Permission granted.
[7] Mr. Kh. Shanta, learned counsel for the 8th respondent is directed to serve the copy of the counter affidavit well in advance to Mr. Th. Babloo, learned counsel for the petitioners and on being receipt of the same, he is directed to file rejoinder, if necessary without fail.
[8] Therefore, Registry is directed to post the main writ petition in WP(C) No.564 of 2017 on 08.12.2021 for final hearing.
JUDGE
John Kom
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay in restoring a writ petition dismissed for default due to the unexplained absence of counsel can be condoned when the counsel's death was not disclosed.
Whether the objection raised by the 8th respondent to the restoration application should be accepted given the newly admitted fact of the counsel's death.
Naorem Amar Meitei and Ors.
State of Manipur
Commissioner of Transport and Ors.
Changangei Un-employed Youths Transport Cooperative Societies Limited
MV Muralidaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
