While picking up the gauntlet and striking the right chord, the Manipur High Court at Imphal in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Shri Potsangbam Jaminikanta Singh Vs State of Manipur in PIL No. 34 of 2022 that was reserved for judgment on March 29, 2023 and then finally pronounced on April 4, 2023 has in no uncertain terms clearly directed the State government to decongest the traffic on national highway in front of the Old Manipur Secretariat by making arrangements for proper parking of vehicles on both sides. It merits mentioning that the most commendable directions came to be passed by a Division Bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr MV Muralidharan and Hon’ble Mr Justice A Guneshwar Sharma while hearing a PIL that was filed by an advocate to complete the balance/remaining work for construction of Capitol Complex (Civil Secretariat Component) at Mantripukhri in Imphal so that the existing Manipur Secretariat may be shifted to the new building and there is no traffic congestion. Of course, these directions must definitely be implemented at the earliest.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Acting Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr MV Muralidharan for a Division Bench of the Manipur High Court at Imphal comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice A Guneshwar Sharma sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
This public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner, who is a practising lawyer, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to complete the balance/remaining work for construction of Capital Complex (Civil Secretariat Component) at Mantripukhri, Imphal, so that the existing Manipur Secretariat may be shifted to the new building and there is no traffic congestion.

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench enunciates in para 2 that:
The case of the petitioner is that in October, 2010, the work for construction of Civil Secretariat was awarded to M/s.Simplex Projects Limited and since M/s.Simplex Projects Limited was not able to complete the construction work within the stipulated time, the contract was terminated vide letter dated 2.11.2019. Thereafter, on 28.12.2019, the Public Works Department issued a fresh Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for the Civil Secretariat work, which was also challenged by M/s.Simplex Projects Limited and finally, this Court, vide judgment and order dated 13.1.2021 in W.A.No.39 of 2020, directed the parties to have a final joint measurement and after completion of the joint measurement, liberty was given to the State to proceed with the construction of the Civil Secretariat Complex by following the required formalities and procedures as provided by law.

While continuing in the same vein, the Division Bench states in para 3 that, Further case of the petitioner is that as per the joint measurement, the balance work estimation was determined and NIT for the work Construction of Capital Complex at Mantripukhri was invited on 19.2.2021 till 15.3.2021 in two-bid system comprising of technical and financial bid. The fourth respondent M/s.Sri Avantika Contractor (I) Limited emerged as successful bidder and was awarded the work on 27.5.2021 within a condition to complete the work within 12 months and the contract agreement was also executed between the fourth respondent and the State. The execution of the work was also started by the said firm. However, the said balance work could not be completed by the said firm within the stipulated period and M/s.Sri Avantika Contractor (I) Limited requested for extension of time and the deadline for completion of the said balance of work was extended upto 30.9.2022. However, the work yet to be completed without assigning any reason. The non-completion of the said work till date is causing inconvenience to the general public passing through the eastern side of the present Manipur Secretariat. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present public interest litigation.

Further, the Division Bench observes in para 4 that:
The respondents 2 and 3 filed affidavit stating that the present public interest litigation suffers from technical defects, as no representation was made to the authorities concerned for remedial actions before filing this petition by the petitioner as per the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019. Hence, the motive of this petition is ill-conceive and liable to be dismissed.

Furthermore, the Division Bench mentions in para 5 that:
The fourth respondent filed affidavit stating that the fourth respondent was aware of the issue of congestion faced in the Highway adjacent to the existing Secretariat. Even though, the traffic congestion may be attributed on various factors, the fourth respondent believes that if the subject project is completed, the traffic will be decongested from the Highway adjacent to the existing Secretariat. It is stated that while the fourth respondent had initiated works at the site, a number of impediments, including restrictions due to Covid-19 pandemic, curfews enforced by the Government, impeded the pace of the project. Some part of the work was being done by certain unauthorized contractors at the site and the fourth respondent always kept the Public Works Department abreast of the situation and sought appropriate measures to mitigate these impediments. In the month of August, 2021, the fourth respondent procured all requisite materials for the project as per the specifications and in the process, certain deviations and extra items were noticed due to change in the site conditions and they were also duly notified to the PWD. Some of the deviations/extra items were approved by the PWD only after a year. Despite the impediments, the fourth Respondent was entrusted to work on the prestigious project and also offered to conduct extra landscaping and horticultural works at the site. The fourth respondent, accordingly, carried out extra items.

Needless to say, the Division Bench states in para 15 that:
We have considered the rival submissions and also perused materials available on record.

Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 18 that:
The non-submission of the representation to the respondent authorities for remedial measures before filing the public interest litigation would not in any way technically affect the present petition for the simple reason that the cause brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner by way of this public interest litigation assumes larger public interest. There is no quarrel that if anyone wants to take up the matter that demands Government action, he has to first raise that issue with the authorities, bring it to their knowledge and ask them how are they going to solve it, for which he has to send a representation in the first place to authorities.

But in the case on hand, the situation is traffic congestion within the heart of Imphal City, particularly, eastern side of the present Manipur Secretariat along the National Highway, which has been witnessed by the Government officials, including the police personnel day in and day out. The work contractor, namely the fourth respondent, also stated that if the subject project is completed, the traffic will be decongested form the Highway adjacent to the existing Secretariat. When such being the statement of the fourth respondent and the traffic congestion alleged by the petitioner in the present public interest litigation is not vague, the non-submission of representation by the petitioner to the respondent authorities for remedial measures before filing the public interest litigation has not affected the case of the petitioner.

It cannot be glossed over that the Division Bench concedes in para 22 that:
In the instant case, the petitioner has approached this Court with clean hands and for larger public interest. Since we are satisfied with the credentials of the petitioner, prima facie correctness of the information given by him and also the information given by the petitioner being not vague, the present public interest litigation at the hands of the petitioner is a bona fide one.

Most remarkably, the Division Bench concedes in para 23 that:
It is the admitted case of both sides that the delay in completion of the Civil Secretariat work has caused traffic congestion on the Highway adjacent to the existing Secretariat as both halves of the National Highway in front of the Secretariat are occupied by the parked vehicles of the officers/employees and securities of VIPs. The said traffic congestion has led to inconvenience to the public passing through the eastern side of the present Secretariat.

Frankly speaking, the Division Bench hastens to add in para 22 observing that, In the instant case, the petitioner has approached this Court with clean hands and for larger public interest. Since we are satisfied with the credentials of the petitioner, prima facie correctness of the information given by him and also the information given by the petitioner being not vague, the present public interest litigation at the hands of the petitioner is a bona fide one.

It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 24 that:
Though the Civil Secretariat work was started in the year 2010 and even after about 13 years, the same has not been completed and there appears to be a blame by the fourth respondent contractor on the respondent officials qua lack of timely payment and delay by the Public Works Department in approving the rates of the deviations and extra items. Though the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there is more to recover than to pay to the fourth respondent and the completion of the project is not related with the payment to the fourth respondent, nothing has been produced to prove the same, except the status of payment of bills, which is a self-styled note prepared and signed by the Executive Engineer, Building Division No.I, PWD, Manipur.

On the basis of such self-styled undated note, it cannot be contended that excess payments were made to the fourth respondent. The State Government has to be a role model in settling the contractor for the work done by them and because of non-payment, the work cannot be delayed, as the contractor has to pay salaries to its employees for their hard work done and settle the material cost to the traders.

Finally and far most significantly, the Division Bench then concludes by mandating in para 25 that:
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the larger public interest involved, the PIL No.34 of 2022 is disposed of with the following directions:

1. The respondent State is directed to decongest the traffic on the National Highway in front of the Old Manipur Secretariat by making arrangements for proper park of vehicles on both sides. Further, the respondent State is directed to strictly enforce the traffic rules to ensure illegal parked vehicles are booked.
2. The respondent State and the fourth respondent are directed to comply with their contractual obligations qua the completion of construction of Civil Secretariat work.
3. The respondent State is directed to pay the Outstanding dues as per the RA Bills raised by the respondent No. 4 and also approve the rates of deviations and extra items regarding the Civil Secretariat work at earliest.
4. The respondent State and the fourth respondent are directed to co-operate and work in concert with each other to ensure that the Civil Secretariat work is to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. There will be no order as to costs.

In essence, we thus see that the commendable, creditworthy and courageous directions issued by the Manipur High Court at Imphal directing State to decongest traffic near Old Secretariat and to complete the construction of new Secretariat building in 3 months must definitely be implemented in totality as directed hereinabove. There should not be anymore dilly-dallying on it now. No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh