ROYAL ELEVEN YOUNG STAR CRICKET CLUB Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR
LAWS(MANIP)-2019-11-21
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Decided on November 19,2019

Royal Eleven Young Star Cricket Club Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MANIPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

KH.NOBIN SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard Shri N. Jotendro, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No.757 of 2018, WP(C) No.800 of 2018, WP(C) No. 810 of 2018 and WP(C) No.811 of 2018; Shri K. Rabei, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners in writ petitions, namely WP(C) No.802 of 2018 and WP(C) No.805 of 2018 while Shri Y. Nirmolchand, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the IMC in all the writ petitions and Smt. L. Monomala, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State Government in all the writ petitions.
(2.) Since the above writ petitions have arisen out of a similar set of facts, the same are being disposed of by this Court by this common judgment and order.
(3.) A notice inviting tender dated 31-10-2014 was issued by the Imphal Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") inviting bids from the interested and eligible private parties for allotment of parking places. After the said tender process being finalised, the petitioner through its Secretary was selected as the successful bidder and was allowed for executing the work of looking after the parking place from Maharani Thong to Chongtham Crematorium @ Rs.2,300/- per day for twelve months excluding Sundays and other days where bandh or general strikes are imposed w.e.f. 01-01-2015. The term of the petitioner was extended vide order dated 10-06-2016 for the same purpose @ Rs.1,500/-per day excluding Sundays and other days. 3.2. On 11-06-2018, the petitioner through its Secretary, requested the Assistant Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation for extension of the term for another two months and the said representation was not accepted nor was it rejected by the Corporation. A sum of Rs.1,09,500/- was paid by the petitioner on 29-06-2018 and the petitioner has been still managing the parking place without any interruption till the date of filing the representation. As the Corporation failed to notify a fresh NIT for appointment of a new agency for looking after the said parking place, the petitioner has been continuing daily collections from the vehicle owners as is evident from the counterfoil receipts given to the customers. 3.3. The petitioner learnt from the reliable sources that an order dated 25-07-2018 had been issued by the Mayor of the Corporation appointing Shri L. Dojendra Singh, the Secretary, Office of the Development Organisation, Andro Kendra, Imphal East, Manipur for the management of the parking place on payment of Rs.1,500/- excluding Sundays and other days where bandh and general strikes are imposed w.e.f. 10-08-2018. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 25-07-2018, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds that the impugned order dated 25-07-2018 issued by the Mayor was illegal in view of the instructions dated 26-03-2018 issued by the Director (MAHUD), Government of Manipur; that while passing the said order dated 25-07-2018, the Mayor had violated the principles of natural justice as the parking place was being managed by the petitioner; that the said order 25-07-2018 was issued by the Mayor in collusion with the private respondent. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the private respondent denying the averments made in the writ petition. It has been specifically denied that the term of appointment of the petitioner had been extended vide order dated 10-06-2016 and that the petitioner has been continuing to look after the said parking place and moreover, after the order dated 10-06-2016 being issued, there was no extension order. The private respondent was temporarily appointed as the agency vide order dated 25-07-2018 issued by the Mayor till the tender process was/is done w.e.f. 10/8/2018. The issuance of the said order dated 25-07-2018 was not illegal in view of the powers and functions of the Chairperson/ Mayor, as provided under the provisions of Section 33 of the Manipur Municipalities Act, 1994. Since the petitioner had not been managing the said parking place, there was no question of violation of principles of natural justice. Since the private respondent had already started functioning as a parking agency vide order 25-07-2018, the petitioner had no business to manage the parking place in the absence of a valid order. ;


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