HC dismisses PIL over petitioner's ulterior motives
Source: Chronicle News Service

Imphal, July 26 2022: Manipur High Court while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) observed that "the petitioner is fully deserving of being mulcted with exemplary costs, we desist from doing so as the issue raised by him was in public interest though his motives were obviously not" .

The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice MV Muralidaran heard a PIL filed by Laitonjam Meghachandra seeking a direction to the authorities of the State of Manipur to pass appropriate orders in terms of the order dated February 7, 2022 passed by Lokayukta, Manipur directing the state government not to allow certain individuals to function in official positions and to entrust their duties to others till completion of the investigation against them.

Pursuant to the February 7 direction, the Deputy Secretary (Power) addressed a letter dated 13.04.2022 to the Managing Director, Manipur State Power Company Limited (MSPCL), conveying the government's approval to the termination of the contracts of the respondents.

However, no action was taken by the Managing Director, MSPCL.

While the matter was pending consideration on this issue, the Managing Director, MSPCL filed an additional affidavit on July 16 claiming that Laitonjam Meghachandra, the petitioner, accompanied by Ahanthem Karandewan and his wife Yumnam Romika visited the respondent at his residence on April 29, expressed regret for filing the PIL and claimed he had been misguided by some persons.

According to the Managing Director, they then left his residence, but surprisingly, on May 5, Yumnam Romika spoke to his daughter and informed her that the petitioner was demanding a huge sum of money for settling this PIL.

Photographs were also filed with this additional affidavit, wherein the petitioner is seen in the residence of the Managing Director.

This aspect was confirmed by D Julius Riamei, counsel who appeared for the petitioner at that stage.

In the light of the serious allegations levelled against him, the petitioner was given an opportunity to file his response.

Thereupon, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit dated on July 23, wherein he admitted having gone to the house of the Managing Director.

According to him, the Managing Director was a stranger to him and so was Yumnam Babita.

He admitted that Ahanthem Karandewan was a relative and a neighbour, while Yumnam Ronika was his wife.

He claimed that during the pendency of the case, he was approached by the said couple with a request to withdraw the instant PIL at the instance of Managing Director but he did not accede thereto.

Having stated so, the petitioner then claimed that he was compelled and pressured by the couple to visit the residence of the Managing Director and on their repeated asking, so as to observe and keep neighbourly relations with them, he was coerced into visiting the Managing Director at his residence.

He admitted his presence in the photographs filed by the Managing Director and stated that there were five persons there at that time � Anil, the younger brother of Ahanthem Karandewan, Managing Director, the couple and himself.

The petitioner asserted that it was a stratagem, by which the Managing Director, with the connivance of the other persons, enticed him to do the 'unwise' act of visiting the MD's residence.

On July 25, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the Bench found that D Julius Riamei, counsel, has now been replaced by N Mahendra, counsel, who stated that the petitioner instructed him to appear in the matter.

Apart from the fact that the sudden change of counsel speaks for itself, the clear admission of the petitioner that he went to the residence of Managing Director at the behest of a couple, knowing fully well that attempts were made by the very same couple to get him to withdraw this PIL case, raises serious doubts as to his bonafide in filing and pursuing this case.

On the one hand, the endeavour of the Lokayukta, Manipur, is to effectively address corruption in the state by taking appropriate action against those allegedly involved and, pending such investigation, certain individuals holding high office were asked to be shifted elsewhere.

The Court observed that using such an order as a means to make unlawful gains is not only a contradiction in terms but would also be clear abuse of process.

The very fact that the petitioner went to the residence of the Managing Director, knowing that he had filed a case against him and accompanied by the very same couple who had earlier tried to get him to withdraw this case, is a clear indication that the motive and actions of the petitioner were not above board.

Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition while noting that the petitioner is shown to be completely lacking in bonafides.

Comment