Decided on July 03,2019

Leitanthem Sushindro Singh Appellant


M.V.MURALIDARAN,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records dated 31.08.2016 and 18.11.2015 respectively and to quash the same and also direct the third respondent to furnish all the information sought In the application dated 25.01.2014.
(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is as follows: 2.1. After the election code of conduct was announced for election of Thoubal Municipal Council without following due process of law for selection of beneficiary, by order dated 18.11.2015, an allotment of 30 shops licenses for a period of 21 years at the Shopping Complex at Thoubal Wangmataba was issued. According to the petitioners, the construction of the Shopping Complex was done behind the back and knowledge of the general public and without participation of the Ward Development Committee of Ward No.2, who have legal right to be consulted as per law. 2.2. Earlier, the petitioners have filed WP(C) No.421 of 2016 before this Court seeking to quash the allotment order dated 18.11.2015 and to direct the respondent authorities to evict all the occupiers of shops at the Shopping Complex, Thoubal Wangmataba. In the said writ petition, the petitioners have also sought a direction on the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation dated 25.04.2016. By an elder dated 22.07.2016, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the second respondent therein i.e., the Deputy Commissioner (Thoubal) to consider and dispose of the representation dated 25.04.2016 by passing a speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2.3. Pursuant to the order dated 22.07.2016 passed ln W.P.(C) No.421 of 2016, the Deputy Commissioner had issued the impugned order dated 31.08.2016 rejecting the representation of the petitioners dated 25.04.2016 stating that he had directed the Executive Officer of Thoubal Municipal Council to inquire into the allegation made in the representation dated 25.04.2016. According to the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner has not conducted any enquiry before passing the impugned order. 2.4. The case of the petitioners ls that the Deputy Commissioner merely compared the records submitted by the petitioners with those In the Council, which was unnecessary, as it is not a dispute of genuineness of records. Without answering the queries as to how the allotment of shops was made, the process for selection of beneficiaries/allottees and how the said Shopping Complex in question was constructed by the Municipal Council, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 and the impugned order ls devoid of merits and the same Is liable to be quashed. Hence, the petitioners have flied the writ petition seeking the relief stated supra.
(3.) The second respondent/Deputy Commissioner filed a counter affidavit stating that under Section 202 of the Manipur Municipality Act, 1994, the second respondent has no authority to exercise power of enquiry as no empowerment has been sanctioned by the Government in that behalf. However, In order to comply with the direction issued in W.P.(C) No.421 of 2016, dated 22.07.2016, the second respondent requested the Executive Officer of Thoubal Municipal Council to make necessary enquiry and furnish comment on the allegations made in the representation dated 25.04.2016 for consideration and necessary orders. It is stated that based on the materials available in the enquiry report of the Executive Officer and other materials, the impugned order dated 31.08.2016 was passed. Stating that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 31.08.2016 and that the impugned order was issued on the basis of the materials available on record, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.