SHRI KH. MORUNG MARING, S/O KH. ANGAM MARING, MOLIMPHAI VILLAGE, TENGNOUPAL SUB-DIVISION, P.O. & P.S. TENGNOUPAL, CHANDEL DISTRICT, MANIPUR Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER (TD & HILLS), GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL those twenty seven writ petitions, mentioned above, filed by different petitioners against same respondents, were filed on same cause of action and were placed together before this Court for admission hearing as shown in the cause list. This single order shall govern all the cases.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel, Mr. Serto T. Kom, appearing for the petitioners and learned senior counsel, Mr. L. Shyamkishore, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. L. Anand appearing for the respondents.

(3.) ON the other hand, appearing for the respondents, learned senior counsel, Mr. Shyamkishore submits that the Commissioner to the Government of Manipur in the Hills Department, illegally and un -authorizedly, without following the procedures prescribed by law, issued those orders marked as Annexure -A/2 to the writ petitions(Annexure -A/3 in WP (C) No.683 of 2011) and when it was detected that those orders were without any authority, having void ab initio, the said Commissioner issued orders marked as Annexure -A/3 to the writ petitions(Annexure -A/4 in WP (C) No.683 of 2011), canceling the earlier orders and the orders have been notified duly. The State Government already placed the concerned Commissioner, Mr. B.B. Sharma and other officers under suspension for such unauthorized activity and no right was accrued in favour of the writ petitioners by virtue of such illegal and void orders. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel, Mr. Shyamkishore that according to procedure prescribed by law, before issuing order the Commissioner was supposed to get approval of the Minister -in -charge of the concerned Department as prescribed under Rule 28 of the Rules of Executive Business, and the Commissioner, without approval of the concerned Minister of the Department, issued the orders, which were completely beyond his jurisdiction, and therefore, the orders were liable to be treated as void and having no force at all. He has also submitted that according to the provision prescribed in Section 29A (inserted under 3rd Amendment Act, 2008, Sec. 9) of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971, the recommendation of the District Council was necessary but that was not done, and hence, all those orders were illegal and cancellation orders were therefore rightly issued, which does not deserve interference by this Court.