Manipur HC Rules in Favor of MSPCL Officials in a Plea Challenging Manipur Lokayukta

The Manipur High Court, in its judgment delivered on October 1, has dismissed a complaint against officials of the Manipur State Power Company (MSPCL). The court stated that the complaint, Case No. 5 of 2022, brought before the Manipur Lokayukta by Ngangom Ibotombi Singh against N. Sarat Singh and two other officials, is time-barred. Consequently, it is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the Manipur Lokayukta, as outlined by the Manipur Lokayukta Act. This ruling provides significant relief to the implicated MSPCL officials.
“The Complaint Case No. 5 of 2022 pending on the file of the Manipur Lokayukta against the petitioners is closed,” the High Court said.
The present petition assails with the order dated 08-09-2022 of the Manipur Lokayukta relating to a complaint filed before the Manipur Lokayukta by one Ngangom Ibotombi Singh of Oinam Bazar Makha, Nambol, Bishnupur district incriminating N Sarat Singh, the then Managing Director, Manipur State Power Co. Ltd. (MSPCL), and two others for embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds in respect of a turn-key project namely, installation of a 2×5 MVA, 33/11 KV sub-station, along with associated 33 KV line and related civil works at Sugnu, and directing MSPCL to produce certain documents on the basis of the complaint.
Brief Facts
After Manipur Lokayukta passed the order dated September 8, 2022, directing MSPCL to produce certain documents on the basis of the complaint made by Ngangom Ibotombi Singh.
During examination, it has come to the knowledge of MSPCL that the alleged complaint relating to the construction of an associated 33 kV transmission line for the turn-key project was completed on August 14, 2015, and as seven years have elapsed, the Power Department informed the Manipur Lokayukta that the complaint is time-barred in view of Section 53 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, and a request has been made not to proceed with the proposed inquiry. However, the Manipur Lokayukta, without appreciating the stand of the Power Department, passed an order on September 23, 2022, directing that all documents be made available by 10-10-2022. It also directed the Administrative Secretary and Dy. Secretary, Power Department, Government of Manipur, to be present before the Manipur Lokayukta on 10-10-2022.
The High Court, in its hearing on September 29, 2022, passed an order of interim stay of the order dated September 23, 2022, passed by the Manipur Lokayukta.
The High Court was dealing with a challenge from the Manipur Lokayukta to vacate the interim order dated September 29, 2022. The High Court, by the order dated December 19, 2022, dismissed the challenge, and the interim order dated September 29, 2022, was made absolute.
It is reiterated that the High Court, in its hearing on December 19, 2022, observed that Manipur Lokayukta was not appreciating the stand of the government and has been insisting on making inquiries that are otherwise outside its jurisdiction, thereby making it clear that Manipur Lokayukta has become an instrument in the hands of a few persons who indulge in making complaints on surmises and information provided against the official documents and records.
Such actions demonstrate the personal interest of the inquiring authority (Manipur Lokayukta). Therefore, it has become imperative that interference of this Court in the matter be highly necessary so that systematic harassment in the name of investigation and inquiry at the behest of vested interested individuals be prevented, thereby restoring the faith of the general public, including officials working in such government establishments manning the essential service, observed the Court.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the challenge by the High Court with the order dated December 19, 2022, the Manipur Lokayukta filed an SLP before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court, vide order dated February 3, 2023, disposed of the SPL. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus:
“Noticing that by the impugned order that the High Court has made the interim order absolute, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, Without expressing any view on the merits of the contentions of the parties, we only request that the High Court dispose of the writ petition itself within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of this order before the High Court. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”
In the course of the hearing of the petition, the complainant, Ngangom Ibotombi Singh, was impleaded as the party respondent, and notice was served to him, but he has not appeared before the High Court to substantiate his complaint.
The Manipur Lokayukta filed a miscellaneous application in the aforementioned SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed their plea on March 10, 2023.
Court’s Observations
Execution of the associated 33 kV transmission line, which is the prime focus of the complainant in Complaint Case No. 5 of 2022 of the Manipur Lokayukta, was completed on August 14, 2015, by the petitioners. The Manipur Lokayukta has not produced any document disputing this document or its completion date.
The Manipur Lokayukta, without appreciating the stand of the government, called for the personal appearance of the petitioners under the guise of inquiry, which prima facie is outside its jurisdiction.
The complainant, Ngangom Ibotombi Singh, was impleaded as a party respondent in the petitions. Despite his service, he has not appeared before the High Court. Lodging complaints before the Manipur Lokayukta and tracing evidence through the Manipur Lokayukta cannot be permitted.
The petitioners, to prima facie prove their case, have produced the handing over or taking over certificate. To disprove the said certificate, no material has been produced by Manipur Lokayukta. No prima facie proof to show the alleged misappropriation of funds by the petitioners, as alleged by the Manipur Lokayukta, is placed on record. Under the garb of inquiry or investigation, evidence cannot be traced out to suit a person, and the authority of the Manipur Lokayukta cannot be misused.
The petitioners have established prima facie that the associated 33 kV transmission line for the project was completed on August 14, 2015. Thus, the complaint is barred by limitation, and in the time-barred complaint, the Manipur Lokayukta cannot issue notices under the guise of an inquiry or verifying records. Admittedly, the Manipur Lokayukta ought not to have ordered an inquiry, as the work was completed way back on August 14, 2015.
It is clear that a complaint before the Manipur Lokayukta needs to satisfy the condition mentioned in Section 14(1) of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, and in the present petition, the said Act has not been fulfilled by the complainant, and the said fact was not properly analysed. That apart, expanding the scope of the inquiry beyond the allegation made in the complaint by the Manipur Lokayukta is against the objective of the said Act. Such an intention to have a roving inquiry cannot be permitted.
A series of actions are undertaken by the Manipur Lokayuta in connection with Complaint Case No. 5 of 2022, and as such, the claim of the bona fide is highly misplaced for not accepting the stand of the government.