Hijam Shantikumar Singh v. State of Manipur and 2 Others
WP(C)/402/2025 · 2025-05-15
Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 1227 (MAN) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 1227 (MAN) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
Item No. 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 402 of 2025
Hijam Shantikumar Singh
Petitioner Vs.
State of Manipur & 2 Ors
Respondents
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
16.05.2025
Heard Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Monish Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate General appearing for the State respondents. In the present petition, the only grievance raised by the petitioner is that before completing the tenure of his contract appointment, the authorities have terminated his service without giving any show cause notice or without giving any opportunities of being heard and that such action of the authorities is in complete violation of the well settled principles of natural justice. On the other hand, the learned AG Manipur submitted that under the Memorandum of Association of the Manipur State Power Distribution Company Ltd. (MSPDCL) more particularly under paragraph 47(a) and (b), MSPDCL or the Govt. has been given absolute discretionary power to appoint or to remove Director(s) from the office at any time. However, the learned AG also submitted before this court that he has received instructions from the authorities that the authorities are ready to cancel the orders impugned in the present petition by reserving liberty to take LUCY GURU MAYU M Digitally signed by LUCY GURUMAYUM Date: 2025.05.16 15:50:06 +05'30'
2
appropriate action as deem fit and proper against the petitioner strictly in terms of applicable law. The learned AG accordingly submitted that the present petition be closed by recording his submission. Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that an observation may be made that the authorities should cancel the impugned order latest by 19th of May, 2025. Recording the submission made by the learned AG before this Court and also the submission made the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner the present petition is hereby closed by directing the authorities to cancel the impugned order on or before 19th of May, 2025. However, it is made clear that the authorities have the liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of.
JUDGE
Lucy