The 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 M.V. Muralidaran heard a PIL filed by Laitonjam Meghanchandra Singh seeking a direction to the authorities of the State of Manipur to pass appropriate orders in terms of the order dated 07.02.2022 passed by the 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 aforestated direction, the Deputy Secretary (Power), Government of Manipur, 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, Manipur.
While the matter was pending consideration on this issue, the Managing Director, MSPCL, Manipur filed an additional affidavit dated 16.07.2022 along with annexures.
In his affidavit it is stated that, on 29.04.2022, Laitonjam Meghanchandra Singh, the petitioner in this case, accompanied by Ahanthem Karandewan Singh and his wife Yumnam Romika Devi, who is none other than the younger sister of Yumnam Babita Devi, the sister-in-law of N. Sarat Singh, visited him at his residence. He further stated that after examining the records, the petitioner 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 05.05.2022, Yumnam Romika Devi 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, vide order dated 18.07.2022.
Thereupon, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit dated 23.07.2022, 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 Devi. He admitted that Ahanthem Karandewan Singh was a relative and a neighbour, while Yumnam Ronika Devi was his wife. He claimed that during the pendency of this 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 Singh, 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 bonafides 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.