Gangmei Gaidon Rongmei vs State Of Manipur And Ors

[1] Heard Shri N. Jotendro, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner; Shri M. Rarry, learned Addl. AG appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri Y. Nirmolchand, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.2.

[2] The validity and correctness of the suspension order dated 15-01-2020 issued by the Under Secretary (MAHUD), Government of Manipur is under challenge in this writ petition.

[3] Facts and circumstances, as narrated in the writ petition which have led to the filing of the present writ petition are as under:-

(a) The petitioner is an elected Corporator of the Imphal Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"). On 26-06-2019 as many as 18 (eighteen) Corporators submitted a requisition for convening a special meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion against the then Mayor, Shri L. Lokeshwor Singh for his various illegal activities. Instead of taking necessary steps as regards the removal of the Mayor, the State Government issued a show cause notice dated 03-07-2019 directing the Corporation to furnish an explanation as to why appropriate action should not be taken against it. It has been stated in the notice that if no reply was given within 7 (seven) days thereof, it would be presumed that there was nothing to say and action would be initiated ex-parte. Since there are some allegations against the Corporators, they should have been given an opportunity to rebut it. Being aggrieved by the said notice, the writ petition being WP(C) No.541 of 2019 was filed on 09-07-2019 in which this Court issued notice to the respondents. While the said writ petition was pending, the order dated 15-07-2019, suspending the Corporation, was issued. Being aggrieved by it, the writ petition being WP(C) No.559 of 2019 was filed on the inter-alia grounds that the Municipal Commissioner failed to convene a special meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion against the Mayor pursuant to the said requisition dated 26-06-2019; that the State Government, in order to defeat the very purpose of the said requisition, issued an order dated 15-07-2019; that it was mala fide, arbitrary and illegal and that the issuance of the order dated 15-07-2019 was arbitrary and mala fide.

[4] On 16-07-2019, the State Government issued an order appointing the Joint Secretary (MAHUD), Government of Manipur to exercise the power and functions of the Corporation and being aggrieved by it, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.569 of 2019 challenging it.

[5] After having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties in the said writ petitions, this Court vide its common judgment and order dated 17-09-2019 dismissed the writ petitions being WP(C) No.559 of 2019 and WP(C) No.569 of 2019 as devoid of merit but in so far as WP(C) No.541 of 2018 is concerned, the same was allowed in part with the direction that in terms of the requisition dated 26-06-2019 submitted by the Corporators including the petitioner, the Municipal Commissioner shall convene a special meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion against the Mayor within 2 (two) weeks from the date of expiry of 6 (six) months of suspension of the Corporation. The relevant thereof para reads as under:-

"12. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petitions being WP(C) No. 559 of 2019 and 569 of 2019 are dismissed as devoid of any merit. So far as the writ petition being WP(C) No.541 of 2019 is concerned, it is partly allowed with the direction that in terms of the requisition dated 26-06-2019 submitted by the Corporators including the petitioner, the Municipal Commissioner shall convene a special meeting for consideration of „No-Confidence Motion against the Mayor‟ within two weeks from the date of expiry of six months of suspension of the Corporation. There shall be no as to costs."

[6] Instead of taking appropriate steps to comply with the said direction, the State Government issued the impugned order dated 15-01-2020 extending the suspension of the Corporation for another 6 (six) months. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 15-01-2020, the instant writ petition has been filed to question it.

[7] When the matter was taken up for consideration on 23-01-2020, the learned counsel appearing for the parties submitted that in view of the urgency involved in the matter, the instant writ petition be heard finally at the stage of admission and in the event of the judgment and order being reserved by this Court after hearing them, they be given the opportunity to file their written submissions. In compliance with the order dated 23-01-2020, a written submission was filed on behalf of the State Government, while no written submission was filed either on behalf of the petitioner or of the respondent No.2, the Corporation.

[8] During the course of hearing, it has been submitted by Shri N. Jotendro, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that even though 18 Corporators submitted an application dated 02-01-2020 reminding and requesting to hold or convene a special meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion against the Mayor in terms of the requisition dated 26-06-2019, the Under Secretary (MAHUD), Government of Manipur, without assigning any valid reason, issued the order dated 15-01-2020. It has further been submitted that the issuance of the order dated 15-01-2020 is in complete violation of the direction contained in the judgment and order dated 17-09-2019 and therefore, the Notification dated 15-01-2020 thereby extending the suspension of the Corporation for another six months is arbitrary and malafide. It is the duty of the Municipal Commissioner to convene a meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion but due to inaction on his part, no process was initiated by him wthut assigning any reason. The order dated 15-01-2020 was issued with a view to save the skin of the Mayor. Relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Naseem Bano Vs. State of UP & ors., 1994 suppl (4) SCC 46 it has further been submitted that since the averments made in the writ petition have not been denied by the respondents, the same shall be deemed to have been admitted by them.

[9] On the other hand, it has been submitted by Shri M. Rarry that the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Corporators were not served with the show cause notices, have been rejected by this Court in the writ petitions being WP(C) No.559 of 2019; WP(C) No. 569 of 2019 and WP(C) No. 541 of 2018. The State Government is empowered under Section 205 of the Act, 1994 to extend the period of suspension for another six months. The suspension of the Corporation was extended on the basis of the report of the Corporation that the corrective measures have been taken up regarding financial discipline. But all the lapses and irregularities have not been rectified till date. The petitioner has not mentioned any reason as to how the reason assigned by the State Government for extending the suspension is not a valid reason. As regards the non-compliance with the direction of this Court, it has been stated that the State Government while exercising its power under Section 205, has no reason to consider a requisition filed under Section 12J pertaining to one of the Corporators. There was no direction by this Court restraining the State Government from exercising its power under proviso to Section 205. The convening of a meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion is to be done by the Corporation and not by the State Government and therefore, the question of violating this Court's order by the State Government does not arise. In order to seek an appropriate order, an application has been filed in writ petition being WP(C) No. 541 of 2018. The instant writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

[10] The subject matter in issue relates to the interpretation of Section 205 of the Manipur Municipalities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1994"), for which the Scheme of the Act, 1994 and in particular, the chapter dealing with the Municipal Corporation had been examined and explained by this Court in the above said writ petitions being WP(C) No. 559 of 2019; WP(C) No. 569 of 2019 an WP(C) No. 541 of 2018. The relevant paras are read as under:-

"7.1. In order to decide the issue involved herein, the scheme of the Act, 1994 and in particular, the provisions thereof needs to be examined and understood by this Court. Chapter-IIIA deals with the Municipal Corporation. Section 12 A provides for incorporation of Municipal Corporation, while Section 12 C provide for its composition. Sub-section (1) provides that every Municipal Corporation shall consist of such number Corporators as may be fixed by the State Government. Sub-section (2) provides that all the seats in a Municipal Corporation shall be filled by persons chosen by direct election from the territorial constituencies to be known as wards in municipal area. There shall be a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson who shall be known as the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor for the Corporation. The procedure for removal of the Mayor or the Vice-Mayor is provided in Section 12J. Section 12K provides that if the motion of no-confidence against the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor is defeated, no fresh motion against any of them shall be brought within a period of one year from the date of defeat of motion. The power and functions of Mayor is provided in Section 12M. In terms of Section 12P, there shall be a Municipal Commissioner who shall be the executive officer of the Corporation and shall function as the Secretary to the Corporation. He shall be appointed by the State Government under the terms and conditions as may be prescribed by it. Section 12Q provides that the provisions of this Act as are applicable to the Nagar Panchayat or the Municipal Council, shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of the Municipal Corporation. As seen from the above provisions, the scheme of the Act and in particular, the Chapter-IIIA dealing with the Municipal Corporation, is that the Corporation shall be managed and administered by the corporators elected by the people of the municipal area. It is in tune with the democratic principle and in other words, it can be said to be the general rule."

"7.2. In the backdrop of the above provisions, the subject matter in issue relates to the interpretation of Section 205 of the Act, 1994 which reads as under:

"205. Power to suspend or dissolve Nagar Panchayat or Council in certain cases.- If in the opinion of the Government, a Nagar Council, as the case may be, is not competent to perform or persistently make default in the performance of the obligatory duties imposed upon it by or under this Act or exceed or abuse its power the Government may by notification, stating the reasons for so doing declare such Nagar Panchayat or Council to be incompetent or in default or to have exceeded or abused its power, as the case may be, and suspend or dissolve such Nagar Panchayat or Council;

Provided that a Nagar Panchayat or a Council, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before its suspension or dissolution;

Provided further that when a Nagar Panchayat or a Council, as the case may be, is suspended or dissolved, the Government may appoint any person or persons to exercise and perform the powers and duties of the Nagar Panchayat or the Council during the period of suspension or dissolution until the new Nagar Panchayat or the Council, as the case may be, is constituted:

Provided also that the Government shall, before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of dissolution of the Nagar Panchayat or the Council, Cause fresh elections to be held for the constitution of a new Nagar Panchayat or a new Council.

Provided also that an order of suspension of the Council or Nagar Panchayat so issued, as the case may be, shall, unless revoked or extended, cease to operate on the expiration of a period of six months from the date of the suspension order but no such order of suspension, in any case, shall remain in force for more than one year."

Section 205 provides that if in the opinion of the Government, a Nagar Panchayat or a Council is not competent to perform or persistently make default in the performance of obligatory duties imposed upon it or under this Act or exceed or abuse its power, the Government may by notification, stating the reasons for so doing, declare such Nagar Panchayat or Council to be incompetent or in default or to have exceeded or abuse its power to suspend or dissolve such Nagar Panchayat or Council. This section does not mention anything about the Municipal Corporation but in terms of Section 12Q, the provisions of this Section 205 will apply to the Municipal Corporation. The words "competent", "exceed", "abuse" etc. are not defined in the Act and therefore, they should be understood with reference to the dictionary meaning. This power conferred upon the State Government is an exception to the general rule as contained in Chapter IIIA concerning the Municipal Corporation and therefore, the same shall be exercised sparingly. It is incumbent upon the State Government not to make the exception a general rule and if it does so, it will lead to destruction of the democratic system. This power of the State Government can be exercised on any of the grounds mentioned therein-one, if the Corporation is not competent to perform its duties; two, if it persistently makes default in the performance of its obligatory duties; three, if it exceeds its power and four, if it abuses its power. To exercise its power, the State Government shall state reasons and in other words, it shall record reasons for exercising its power of suspension. In addition thereto, the first proviso states that the Corporation shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before it suspension.

It has been submitted by Shri N. Jotendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that before the Corporation being suspended by the State Government, no notice was given to the corporators; that such notice ought to have been given to the corporators for the reason that it is the corporators who ultimately suffer on account of the suspension of the Corporation; that the suspension of the Corporation was malafide and the impugned order was issued by the State Government with a view to thwart or frustrate the requisition dated 26-06-2019 submitted by the corporators including the petitioner for convening a special meeting of „No-Confidence Motion‟ against the Mayor; that the issuance of the impugned order was highly a politically motivated one and that if there was/ is any financial irregularity being committed by the corporators, an appropriate action could have been taken against them under the provisions of Manipur Employees Liabilities Act or under the provisions of Section 29 of the Act for their removal. The reply given by the Municipal Commissioner was without any authority of the Corporation. Combating his contention, Shri M. Rarry, learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that the power of suspension is conferred upon the State Government by the Act and therefore, no one can stop the State Government from exercising its power. The requisition submitted by the corporators including the petitioner for convening a special meeting of „No-Confidence Motion‟ against the Mayor has nothing to do with the exercise of its power by the State Government under Section 205 of the Act, 1994. Shri Y. Nirmolchand, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has endorsed the argument of Shri M. Rarry and in addition thereto, he has submitted that it is the collective responsibility of the Corporation and the decisions are taken by it on the basis of majority and therefore, when an action under Section 205 is to be taken by the State Government, it is to be taken against the Corporation.

There can be no any dispute amongst the parties that the State Government is empowered by and under the provisions of the Act, 1994 to suspend or dissolve the Corporation on any of the grounds mentioned therein. Before issuing any order of suspension, the State Government ought to get itself satisfied on the basis of materials that the Corporation is not competent to discharge its duties and function or it has exceeded or abused its power and function, for which reasons are to be recorded by it. This Court cannot substitute its opinion to that of the State Government and all that this Court can examine, is as to whether the decision taken by the State Government is based on materials or not. On perusal of the impugned order dated 15-07-2019, it is seen that the decision of the State Government is based on the report dated 14-01-2019 of the Local Fund Audit, a copy of which has been filed along with the writ petition being WP(C) No.559 of 2019 as Annexure-A/4. In the said report, as many as 16 irregularities have been enumerated which are alleged to have been committed by the Corporation. The said report is cryptic and only findings are given without any explanation thereof. However, since the validity and correctness of the said report is not the subject in issue in these writ petitions, this Court cannot go into it and no observation can be made by this Court in respect thereof. Moreover, the said report appears to have not been challenged by anyone.

It has vehemently been submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that the action of the State Government is malafide and the impugned order was issued to thwart the requisition submitted by the corporators including the petitioner for convening a special meeting of „No-Confidence Motion‟ against the Mayor. It may be noted that the report of the Local Fund Audit was prepared and submitted as back as on 14-01-2019 and if the State Government really desired to take action against the Corporation, it could have done so immediately after the report being submitted by the authority concerned. But it did not do that. The show cause notice dated 03-07-2019 was issued immediately after the requisition having been submitted by the corporators. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the impugned order was issued to thwart or frustrate the requisition, might be correct to some extent but since there is no material on record to show that, this Court cannot go by the presumption. In other words, there is no material on record to show that the State Government‟s action was unreasonable and malafide. On 18-07-2019 when the matter was taken up for consideration, this Court granted the petitioner an opportunity to inspect the records maintained by the Corporation. Even then, he could not produce materials to substantiate his case. With regard to the reply given by the Commissioner, his contention appears to be correct for the reason that it is not based on the collective decision or the resolution taken by the Corporation. The reply to be filed by the Commissioner is on behalf of the Corporation but it has been filed by him without it being backed by a collective decision. It has been contended by him as regards the installation of solar lamps that there is no any fault on his part and therefore, there is no reason as to why he should be penalized for it. Further, the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that it the Mayor who has committed many financial irregularities, for which requisition has been submitted for his removal. But it is nowhere stated in the report of the Local Fund Audit that the financial irregularities as enumerated therein have been committed by the Mayor. The irregularities are alleged to have been committed by the Corporation. As has been observed hereinabove, the report of the Local Fund audit appears to have not been challenged by anyone and as long as it is not quashed and set aside by an appropriate forum, the decision of the State Government based on it cannot be said to be illegal. As regards the contention that no notice was served upon the corporators, it may further be noted that it is nowhere stated in the first proviso that in an action to be taken by the State Government for suspension of the Corporation, notice ought to be given to all the corporators. Therefore, his contention has no substance and merit."

[11] In Tabitha Panmei Vs. the Commissioner/ Secretary (MAHUD) & ors, WP(C) No.1048 of 2019 wherein a similar issue did arise and was decided by this Court on 20-01-2020, this Court examined the scheme of the Act, 1994 and in particular, the scope of Section 205 and observed as under:

"6. By way of an amendment of the Constitution, Part-IX came to be inserted therein with effect from 24-04-1993 with the objective that the constitutional status of the local self-government be conferred on the panchayats. In other words, it confers certain powers on the local self-government with certain promises as regards the duration of five years, free and fair election, representation of SC/ST in the administration of the institutions of local self-government. In tune with the constitutional provisions, the Act, 1994 was enacted by the State Legislature. The term "Panchayat" is defined in Section 2(41) of the Act, 1994 as an institution of self-government at the district or village level constituted under the provisions of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Section 4 provides for constitution of Nagar Panchayat, Municipal Council and Municipal Corporation by issuing notification by the Governor. A Panchayat can be incorporated under the provisions of Section 6 and Section 7(1) provides that every Panchayat shall consist of such number of Councillors as may be fixed by the Government from time to time by notification. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that all the seats in a Panchayat shall be filled by persons chosen by direct election from the territorial constituencies to be known as wards in the municipal area of Nagar Panchayat. As seen from the provisions of Section 9, for every Panchayat, there shall be a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson who are to be elected from amongst the Councillors. The election under sub-section (1) of Section 10 shall take place within 21 days from the date of notification of the result. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that in the case of vacancy in the office of the Chairperson on account of any reason other than the expiry of the term of office or the Chairperson, the election shall take place within 21 days from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy. It is thus seen that the scheme of the Act, 1994 is that the local bodies shall be given the power of self-government to be exercised by it through the elected representatives of the people of that area. But an exception has been carved out in the Act, 1994, as is provided in Section 205 which reads as under:

"205. Power of municipality to frame bye-laws:- If in the opinion of the Government, a Nagar Panchayat or a Council, as the case may be, is not competent to perform or persistently make default in the performance of the obligatory duties imposed upon it by or under this Act or exceed or abuse its power the Government may by notification, stating the reasons for so doing declare such Nagar Panchayat or Council to be incompetent or in default or to have exceeded or abused its power, as the case may be, and dissolve such Nagar Panchayat or Council;

Provided that a Nagar Panchayat or a Council, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before its dissolution;

Provided further that when a Nagar Panchayat or a Council, as the case may be, is dissolved, the Government may appoint any person or persons to exercise and perform the powers and duties of the Nagar Panchayat or the Council during the period of dissolution until the new Nagar Panchayat or the Council, as the case may be, is constituted:

Provided also that the Government shall, before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of dissolution of the Nagar Panchayat or the Council, cause fresh elections to be held for the constitution of a new Nagar Panchayat or a new Council."

[7] Section 205 of the Act, 1994 confers power upon the State Government to dissolve a Nagar Panchayat, if it is of the opinion that the Nagar Panchayat is not competent to perform or persistently make default in the performance of the obligatory duties imposed upon it by or under this Act or exceed or abuse its power. For declaring a Nagar Panchayat to be incompetent or in default or to have exceeded or abuse its power, reasons are to be recorded by the State Government. The proviso thereto states that the Nagar Panchayat shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before its dissolution. This Section 205 being an exception to Section 7 and in particular, sub-section (2) thereof, the State Government shall exercise its power sparingly and strictly on the grounds mentioned therein with reasons to be stated and recorded in the notification. This exceptional power of the State Government shall not be exercised as a normal rule and if it is done so, the objective sought to be achieved as contemplated in the Act, 1994 and the Part-IX of the Constitution of India, shall stand defeated. If the State Government or for that matter, its official keeps on violating the provisions of the Act, 1994 enacted by itself, it is likely to create an unfortunate state of affairs in the State. The number of suspension of local bodies has been increasing day by day and the continuing suspension of local bodies may lead to such a situation where they will have to be administered and managed by the State Government which is contrary to the mandate of the Constitution of India."

[12] There are two issues involved herein which need to be considered by this Court-one, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the issuance of the Notification dated 15-01-2020 expending the suspension of the Corporation is justified or in other words, whether there is any material justifying the extension of the suspension of the Corporation and two, whether the issuance of the Notification dated 15-01-2020 is in violation of the direction contained in the judgment and order dated 17-09-2020 passed by this Court.

[13] As regards the first issue and in order to decide it, the background of the case is required to be revisited and noted. On 26-06-2019, as many as 18 Corporators including the petitioner submitted a requisition to convene a special meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion against the Mayor for illegal activities on four grounds mentioned therein. No meeting was convened by the Municipal Commissioner at all but on 03-07-2019, a notice was issued by the State Government to the Corporation as to why it should not be suspended on the ground of financial irregularities. A reply thereto was submitted by the Municipal Commissioner explaining the allegations. However, on 15-07-2019, the State Government issued the order suspending the Corporation, followed by an order dated 16-07-2019 appointing the Joint Secretary (MAHUD) to exercise the power and functions of the Corporation. Both these orders came to be challenged before this Court by way of writ petitions being WP(C) No.559 of 2019; WP(C) No.569 of 2019 an WP(C) No.541 of 2018. The said order dated 15-07-2019 was issued based on the report dated 14-01-2019 of the Local Audit Fund which was cryptic and without any explanation. But since it was not challenged by anyone, this Court declined to interfere with the suspension of the Corporation for six months. This Court did not consider the issue as to whether the suspension of the Corporation could be extended by the State Government for another six months on the basis of the same material. At this juncture, it may be noted that the constitutional mandate as well as that of the Act, 1994, are that the local bodies shall be given the power of self-government through the representatives of the people of their respective areas. It may be noted that Section 205 of the Act, 1994 does not confer any power upon the State Government to manage and administer the local bodies including the Corporation. The power conferred upon the State Government under Section 205 is an extraordinary and special power to be exercised for special purpose and that too, for a limited purpose. Moreover, the extension of suspension of the Corporation is not automatic and depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The purposes for which the power is conferred upon the State Government under Section 205, are twofold - one, to contain the abuse/exceeding of power, the making of default in the performance of duties etc. by the local bodies and two, to enable the State Government to examine them and take action against the local bodies including the Corporation. The Corporation being an institution, has to act collectively on the basis of the resolution taken by it. Therefore, six months time during which the Corporation was under suspension, was sufficient enough for the State Government to exercise its power. The only thing which the State Government ought to have done during the period of six months, was to see whether the action taken by the Corporation was in accordance with law and in other words, whether the action taken by it was in accordance with the resolution taken by it. Since the allegation was against the Corporation, only the records maintained by it were to be examined to find out, if it had really abused or made default in the performance of the duties etc. What had been done by the State Government during the period of six months, has not been disclosed to this Court. No material has been placed on record before this Court to show as to why the State Government could not do the needful in six months. From the facts and circumstances, as aforesaid, commencing from the requisition dated 26-06-2019 being submitted by 18 Corporators, the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the suspension of the Corporation was to avoid the consideration of no-confidence motion, appears to have some merit and substance. The Local Fund Audit report was of 14-01-2019 and if the State Government was really concerned with the allegations made therein, it could have suspended the Corporation at that time itself but it did not do so. The notice for suspension of the Corporation was issued only after the requisition was submitted by 18 Corporators to convene a special meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion against the Mayor. There is no material on record to show the reason as to why the suspension of the Corporation was required to be extended except the averment made in the impugned order and the continuance of the suspension will defeat the mandate of the Constitution of India. The State Government cannot be permitted to do indirectly which it cannot do directly. The Corporation or for that matter, the Corporators cannot be denied of their right to run the Corporation for a long time merely on the ground that the State Government could not do the needful within six months. In other words, the failure on the part of the State Government to complete the exercise of its power within six months, cannot be a ground for denial of right to the Corporation as conferred under the provisions of the Act, 1994 and as mandated by the Constitution of India. No material has been placed on record by the State Government to show that all the allegations made against the Corporation, were found to have been proved warranting appropriate action to be taken against it. The democratic principle is paramount and any deviation therefrom, is permissible only in exceptional circumstances which appear to be no longer in existence in respect of the Corporation.

[14] The second issue relates to the non-compliance with the direction contained in the judgment and order dated 17-09-2019 passed by this Court. As seen from the facts and circumstances as aforesaid, three writ petitions WP(C) No.559 of 2019; WP(C) No. 569 of 2019 and WP(C) No. 541 of 2018, came to be heard together and decided by a common judgment and order dated 17-09-2019 whereby two writ petitions being WP(C) No.559 of 2019 and WP(C) No.569 of 2019 relating to suspension of the Corporation were dismissed, while the third writ petition being WP(C) No.541 of 2018 was allowed in part with the direction that in terms of the requisition dated 26-06-2019 submitted by the Corporators including the petitioner, the Municipal Commissioner shall convene a special meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion against the Mayor within two weeks from the date of expiry of six months of suspension of the Corporation. It may be noted that the State Government was a party in the said writ petitions and therefore, it was very much aware of the direction issued by this Court because it was announced in the presence of its counsel. The fact that the direction was issued by this Court as regards the convening of a meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion immediately after the expiry of six months clearly demonstrates that the State Government was expected to complete the exercise of its power under Section 205 within six months. The State Government knew very well about it. Since no one or for that matter, the State Government, has challenged the judgment and order dated 17-09-2019 passed by this Court before the appropriate forum, it has attained finality and therefore, the State Government is duty bound to honour it. While issuing the Notification dated 15-01-2020, the State Government appears to have not applied its mind and have not taken into account the said circumstances. The continuation of the suspension of the Corporation has created a situation, because of which the implementation of the direction has become impossible. Even though the direction was not against the State Government, it ought to have given a way to the Municipal Commissioner to implement the direction. In fact, the direction of this Court has been rendered non-implementable and therefore, the Notification dated 15-01-2020 being bad in law, is liable to be quashed and set aside.

[15] For the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is allowed and consequently, the Notification dated 15-01-2020 issued by the Under Secretary (MAHUD), Government of Manipur is quashed and set aside with no order as to costs.