THONGKHOJAM BAITE Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 14.6.90 of the Government of Manipur in the Revenue Department, wherein the State Government of Manipur has cancelled the recognition of T. Lailoiphai village as a separate village and has further ordered that hill houses which formed T. Lailoiphai village but originally belong either to Molzol village or Lungngil village shall continue to pay hill house/revenue taxes, etc. through their respective chiefs to the Revenue Authority concerned.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that the Petitioner claims to be the Chief of T. Lailophai village and filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur district, for allowing him to pay hill house taxes, etc. of his village separately. The Sub -Divisional Officer, Churachandpur Sub -Division, then submitted a report stating therein that the prayer of payment of hill house taxes, etc. in the name of T. Lailoiphai may be considered on the ground of administrative and developmental convenience. On the basis of the said report, the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur district, allowed the Petitioner to pay hill house taxes, etc. in the name of T. Lailoiphai village separately by his order dated 13.1.86 in Hill Misc. Matter No. 3/86. The Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Chiefs of Molzol village and Lungngil village, respectively, however, made a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur district, stating, inter alia, that T. Lailoiphai village did not have any separate identity and the Petitioner did not have twenty families which are required for payment of hill house taxes, etc., separately and on the basis of the said complaint, the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur district, passed orders on 31.1.86 cancelling his earlier order 13.1.86. The said order dated 31.1.86 was thereafter revoked by the State Government of Manipur in the Revenue Department by order dated 20.2.86. But in order dated 24.4.86, the Government of Manipur in the Revenue Department, stated that until a final decision is taken on receipt of report from the Deputy Commissioner, Churuchandpur district, the order dated 20.2.86 was stayed. The Government of Manipur in the revenue Department then by its order dated 29.5.86 cancelled the said order dated 24.4.86 but finally by the impugned order dated 14.6.90, the Government of Manipur in the Revenue Department cancelled the recognition of T. Lailoiphai village as a separate village and ordered that hill house which formed T. Lailoiphai village but originally belonged either to Molzol village or to Lungngil village shall continue to pay hill house/revenue taxes, etc. through their respective Chiefs to the concerned Revenue Authority.

(3.) MR . Y. Imo Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4, however, submitted that in the case of Managing Director ECIL v. K. Karunakaran (supra), the Supreme Court clarified that in every case where a grievance is made by the delinquent employee that the copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to him, the Court should ask the employee to show to the Court as to how non -supply of the enquiry report to him has caused prejudice to him and only if prejudice has actually been caused to the delinquent employee for non -supply of the enquiry report to him, the Court would hold that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, therefore, the Petitioner should have specifically pleaded in the writ petition as to how he has suffered prejudice for not being furnished a copy of the enquiry report but no such pleading has been specifically raised by the Petitioner in the Writ petition. Mr Y. Imo Singh then submitted that the impugned order being an administrative order need not state the reasons for which it has been passed and it is sufficient if the impugned order is supported by good reasons available in the records. He explained that the records would indicate that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur district, Sub -Divisional Officer, Churachandpur Sub -Division and the Sub -Deputy Collector, Sangaikot. The impugned order read with the said enquiry report would show that there were good reasons for cancelling the recognition of T. Lailoiphai village as a separate village and for ordering that the hill house which formed the said village but originally belonged either to Molzol village or to Lungngil village shall continue to pay hill house/revenue taxes, etc. through their respective Chiefs to the concerned Revenue Department. Mr Y. Imo Singh finally argued that part of the area in respect of which the impugned order has been passed is surveyed area having individual owners who have not been impleaded as Respondents to this writ petition and hence no order can be passed by this Court in the absence of necessary parties to the Civil Rule.