Ng John Poumei v. Robert Singh Ksh and 3 Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL

Cont.Cas(C)No.93 of 2024

Ng. John Poumai. Petitioner Vs.

Robert Singh Ksh. & 3 Ors. Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR

(O R D E R)

17.07.2025.

[1]

This Contempt proceeding has been initiated by the complainant/petitioner for willful disobedience of the order rendered by the learned Single Judge on the writ side in WP(C)No.836 of 2018 and Cont.Cas(C)No.7 of 2020 which are annexed at annexure C/1 & C/2 dated

24.04.2019 and 19.06.2023. [2]

Whereas this contempt proceeding has been initiated keeping in view the Article 215 of the Constitution of India and section 12 of the Contempt Court's Act, 1971 seeking for implementation of the order and also emphatically seeking for intervention to take some sort of action against the respondents/accused for willful disobedience of the order rendered by the learned Single Judge on the writ side. JOHN TELEN KOM Date: 2025.07.22 13:00:34 +05'30'

[3]

Learned counsel for the complainant, Mr. A. Sachikumar is present before the court physically. Similar, Mr. RK Deepak, learned counsel for respondent No.1 inclusive of Mr. M. Rendy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and so also Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 are present before the court physically. [4]

Whereas, Mr. Mr. Devananda, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in this matter emphatically submitting for consideration of the order dated 24.01.2025 of the Government of Manipur in respect of the P.W.D Department and in addition to that correspondence letter, one more correspondence i.e. CDA Authorization Slip 2024-2025 has been produced and in this correspondence, it indicates that after the amount of Rs.2280000/- has been sanctioned and after deduction of Rs. 119776/-, the amount of Rs. 2160224/- has also already been paid and in this correspondence dated 29.01.2025, the total amount of Rs.2160224/- only the net amount to be accounted under 8782-Remmittance Head(Payment) of respective Engineering and Forest by Treasuries/Sub-Treasuries concerned, the deduction to be accounted under 8782-Remmitance Head(Receipt) of respective Engineering and Forest as Treasury Deductions(by-transfer) by Treasuries/Sub-Treasuries concerned. It is in further for Principal Accountant General Office admitted Rs.119776/- only, it is indicating as the net amount to be accounted under 8782 and also in the aforesaid correspondence dated 29.01.2025, it

reveals as paid amount as Rs.2160224/-, it is indicating in words also and the District Treasury of Senapati, Manipur subscribed the signature dated

31.01.2025 and these are all the documents facilitated by the learned senior counsel, Mr. M. Devananda for consideration and also submitting that this contempt proceeding does not survive for consideration for taking action against the respondents/accused. [5]

Whereas, the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner in this matter submitting that the aforesaid two corresponding letter dated

24.01.2025 and 29.01.2025 has come to his knowledge today only. However, it is a public document and more so this contempt proceeding has been initiated keeping in view the provision of section 2(b) of Contempt Court's Act 1971 for taking action against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders rendered by the learned Single Judge on the writ side but when once the orders rendered by the Learned Single Judge on the writ side has already been complied with, it ought to be closed and this is the submission which is made by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in this matter. [6]

Therefore, keeping in view of the above two correspondences letter dated 24.01.2025 and 29.01.2025 and also taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in this matter are concerned, it is deemed appropriate that this

contempt proceeding would be closed. Accordingly, this proceeding is closed. [7]

However, keeping in view the submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner, it is deemed appropriate that liberty be granted and accordingly, liberty is granted to the complainant/petitioner and it is in accordance with law.

CHIEF JUSTICE

John Kom