Disposed

Jangdai Pamei v. State of Manipur and 5 Ors.

Manipur HC14 Sept 2022WP(C)/189/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a government notification declaring Gaigakngam Kamei as the ex-officio Chairman of Sibilong Village Authority due to an ongoing dispute over khunbu-ship. Court held the State lacks jurisdiction to decide such disputes for Civil Courts but did not interfere as the petition did not seek quashing and the term was expiring.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without quo warranto; directed that future Chairman appointment must strictly follow the Act pending Civil Court decision on khunbu dispute.

Jangdai Pamei Vs State of Manipur and 5 Ors. — Election Law | Manipur HC (2022)

¶1

Digitally signed by RAJKUMAR RAJKUMAR BIDYASUN BIDYASUNDER SINGH DER SINGH Date: 2022.09.20 15:51:22 +05'30'

¶2

Item No. 44-45

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

¶4

AT IMPHAL

¶5

W.P.(C) NO. 185 OF 2022 With W.P.(C) NO. 189 OF 2019

Jangdai Pamei

… Petitioner

Vs.

State of Manipur and 3 others

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

B E F O R E

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. BIMOL SINGH

¶13

14-09-2022

¶14

Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. N. Bipin, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A. Vashum, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 3, Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, learned counsel, appearing for respondents 6, Mr. Ng. Premkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. M. Babina, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5.

¶15

The present writ petition had been filed assailing, inter-alia, notification dated 10.9.2018 issued by the Secretary, (TA & Hills), Govt. of Manipur thereby declaring the election of the respondent No.4, viz., Gaigakngam Kamei, as the Chairman of the Village Authority of Sibilong village in Tamenglong District. The simple grounds raised by the petitioner is that there is a dispute

¶16

¶17

between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 as to who is the genuine khunbu/khullakpa of the said village and this factum has been clearly reflected in the Order dated 29.12.2021 issued by the DC, Tamenglong. The said findings of the DC in the aforesaid order date 29.12.2021 has not been challenged by anybody including the respondent No.4 till today. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the undisputed fact that the question as to who is the rightful khunbu/khullakpa of the Sibilong Hill Village has not been decided by any Court of competent jurisdiction, the declaration of the respondent No.4 as the ex-officio chairman of the Village Authority of Sibilong Hill Village under the impugned notification is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is also submitted that unless and until such dispute is decided by a competent Civil Court, the State Government has no authority or power to declare a person as the Khunbu/khullakpa or Chief of a hill village. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is also no dispute that no election has been held for electing the chairman of the village authority of Sibilong Hill Village in terms of the relevant provisions of law and that the respondent No.4 has been declared as the ex-officio Chairman of the village authority by the Government without any power and authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that without deciding the legality or otherwise of the impugned notification dated 10.9.2018, the present writ petition can be disposed of by passing an innocuous order thereby directing the state government not to appoint any person including the petitioner and the respondent No.4 as the ex-officio Chairman of the village authority of Sibilong

¶18

¶19

Hill Village until such dispute as to who is the rightful khunbu/khullakpa is decided by a competent Civil Court.

¶20

Mr. Ng. Premkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 submitted that the respondent No.4 is the rightful khunbu of the said hill village and by virtue of the provisions of section 3 sub-section (4) of the Manipur Village (Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956, State Government had declared the respondent No.4 as the ex-officio chairman of the Village authority of the said village. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 further submitted that if the petitioner is claiming for the khunbu-ship of the said hill village, he can approach the competent Civil Court for asserting his claim.

¶21

After hearing the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that since there is undeniably a dispute as to who is the rightful khunbu of the said hill village even before the issuance of the impugned notification, the State Government ought not to have declared the respondent No.4 as the ex-officio chairman of the village authority as it has no power and jurisdiction to decide such dispute. In my considered view, such dispute can be decided only by a competent Civil Court. However, as the petitioner has not pressed for quashing the impugned notification and as the term of the said village authority is about to expire soon, this Court is not interfering with the impugned notification.

¶22

It is, however, made clear that unless and until the dispute as to who is the rightful khunbu/khullakpa of the said village is decided by a competent Civil Court, the Chairman of the Village authority of Sibilong Village, Tamenglong

¶23

¶24

District, should be appointed strictly in terms of the provision provided under the Manipur Village (Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956.

¶25

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

bidya

Jangdai Pamei v. State of Manipur and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jangdai Pamei v. State of Manipur and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laithangbam Tomba Singh Vs State of Manipur and 4 Ors.

Sufiyana Kh Alies Mohammad Burhanuddin Vs Director, National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language and 2 Others

Nizamuddin Shah Vs Director, National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language and 2 Others

Laipubam Gautam Sharma Vs State of Manipur

Urikhinbam Narjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of Manipur and 2 Ors.

Representatives of Lois, Wangoo Branch Vs State of Manipur and Another