Sl. No,Existing Districts,New Districts,"Sub-divisions under the
newly created districts
1,2,3,4
1,Imphal East,1. Imphal East District,"Porompat, Keirao Bitra &
Sawombung
,,2. Jiribam District,Jiribam & Borobekra
2,Senapati District,3. Senapati District,"Tadubi, Paomata, Purul,
Willong, Chilivai Phaibung,
Tuijang Waichong, Song-
Song & Lairouching
,,4. Kangpokpi District,"Kangpokpi, Champhai,
Saitu Gamphazol,
Kangchup Geljang, Saikul,
Lungtin, Island & Bungte
Chiru
3.,Thoubal District,5. Thoubal District,Thoubal & Liong
,,6. Kakching District,Kakching & Waikhong
4,Chandel Distric,7. Chandel District,"Chandel, Chakpikarong &
Khengjoy
,,8. Tengnoupal District,"Machi, Moreh &
Tengnoupal
5,Ukhrul District,9. Ukhrul District,"Ukhrul, Lungchong-
Maiphai, Chingai & Jesami
,,,
,,10. Kamjong District,"Kamjong, Sahamphung,
Kasom Khullen &
Phungyar
6,Churachandpur District,11.Churachandpur District,"Churachandpur, Sangaikot,
Tuibuong, Mualnuam,
Singngat, Henglep,
Kangvai, Samulamlan &
Saiko
,,12. Pherzawl District,"Pherzawl, Thanlon,
Parbung-Tipaimukh &
Vangai Ranges
7,Tamenglong District,13.Tamenglong District,"Tamenglong, Tamei &
Tousem
,,14. Noney District,"Nungba, Khoupum,
Longmei (Noney) &
Haochong
Committee) Order, 1972 (Annexure-A/7), hereinafter called the MLA (HAC) Order, 1972, issued by the President of India, with respect to the State",,,
of Manipur, in exercise of power under Article 371C of the Constitution, which was gazette on 10.07.1972. The petitioners relied upon Order 2, Order",,,
3, Order 4 Order 5 of the MLA (HAC) Order, 1972 and the same reads as follows:",,,
“2. Definitions â€" In this Order, -",,,
(a) “Assembly†means the Legislative Assembly of the State ;,,,
(b) “Governor†means the Governor of the State ;,,,
(c) “Hill areas†means the areas specified in the First Schedule ;,,,
(d) “Hill Areas Committee†means the Hill Areas Committee constituted by paragraph 3 of this Order ;,,,
(e) “Schedule†means a schedule appended to this Order ;,,,
(f) “Scheduled matters‟ means the matters specified in the Second Schedule ;,,,
(g) “Speaker†means the Speaker of the Assembly ;,,,
(h) “State†means the State of Manipur.,,,
3. Constitution of the Hill Areas Committee â€" (1) There shall be a Hill Areas Committee of the Assembly consisting of all the members of that,,,
Assembly who are for the time being represent the Assembly constituencies situated wholly or partly in the Hill Areas of the State.,,,
Provided that the Chief Minister of the State and the Speaker shall not be members of the Hill Areas Committee.,,,
(2) Every Minister (including a Minister of State or a Deputy Minister) of the State shall have the right to speak in, and otherwise take part in the",,,
proceedings of the Hill Areas Committee, but shall not, by virtue of such right, be entitled to vote at any meeting of the Committee, if he is not a",,,
member there of.,,,
4. Function of the Hill Areas Committee â€" (1) All Scheduled matters in so far as they relate to the Hill Areas shall be within the purview of the Hill,,,
Areas Committee.,,,
(2) Every Bill, other than a Money Bill, affecting wholly or partly the Hill Areas and containing mainly provisions dealing with any of the Scheduled",,,
matters shall, after introduction in the Assembly, be referred to the Hill Areas Committee for consideration and report to the Assembly.",,,
Provided that if any question arises whether a Bill attracts the provisions of this sub-paragraph or not, the question shall be referred to the Governor",,,
and his decision thereon shall be final.,,,
(3) The Hill Areas Committee shall have the right to consider and pass resolutions recommending to the Government of the State any legislation or,,,
executive action affecting the Hill areas with respect to any scheduled matter, so however that the executive action relates to general questions of",,,
policy and the legislation or executive action is in conformity with the overall financial provisions for the Hill Areas made in the annual budget or,,,
contemplated in the Plans of the State.,,,
(4) The Hill Areas Committee shall have the right to discuss the annual financial statement in so far as it relates to the Hill Areas and to facilitate such,,,
discussion the said statement shall, as far as may be practicable, show separately the estimates of receipts and expenditure pertaining to the Hill Areas",,,
which are to be credited to, or is to be met from the Consolidated Fund of the State.",,,
(5) In its functioning, the hill Areas Committee shall endeavour to â€"",,,
(a) safeguard the interest of the people of the Hill Areas, particularly through accelerated development of those areas ; and",,,
(b) promote unity between the people of the Hill Areas and other areas of the State by aiming at an integrated and evenly based economic growth of,,,
those areas and augment the resources of the State as a whole.,,,
5. Special provisions with regard to Hills affecting the Hill Areas â€" Any bill referred to the Hill Areas Committee under sub-paragraph (2) of,,,
paragraph 4 may, if so recommended by the Hill Areas Committee, be passed by the Assembly with such variations as may be necessary in its",,,
application to the Hill Areas.â€,,,
[8] “Scheduled matters†is defined under Order 2 (f) and it reads as follows :,,,
“SCHEDULED MATTERS,,,
(1) Development and economic planning within the Plan allocations for the Hill Areas.,,,
(2) Constitution and power and functioning of District Councils in the Hill Areas,,,
(3) The allotment, occupation, or use, or the setting apart of land (other than any land which is a reserved forest) for the purposes of agriculture or",,,
grazing or for residential or other non-agricultural purposes or for any other purpose likely to promote the interests of the inhabitants of any village or,,,
town situated within the Hill areas.,,,
Provided that nothing in this item shall apply to lands acquired for any public purpose or the acquisition of land, whether occupied or unoccupied, for",,,
any public purpose in accordance with any law for the time being in force authorizing such acquisition.,,,
(4) The management of any forest not being a reserved forest.,,,
(5) The use of any canal or water course for purposes of agriculture.,,,
(6) The regulation of the practice of Jhum or other forms of shifting cultivation.,,,
(7) The establishment of village committees or Councils and their powers, and other matter relating to village administration.",,,
(8) Public health and sanitation.,,,
(9) The appointment or succession of Chiefs or Headman.,,,
(10) The inheritance of property.,,,
(11) Marriage and divorce,,,
(12) Social customs,,,
(13) Any other matter which the Assembly may by resolution declare to be a matter which shall come within the purview of the Hill Areas,,,
Committee.â€,,,
[9] On the basis of the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972, the MLA (HAC) Order, 1972, the petitioners pleaded that",,,
the creation of new districts is unconstitutional and invalid since approval has not been obtained from the Hill Areas Committee. The creation of new,,,
districts in the Hill Areas fall within the jurisdiction of Hill Areas Committee. This approval is necessary because of the mandate of Article 371C of,,,
the Constitution of India, which protects rights of people of the hill areas. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Order 4 (5) (a) of",,,
the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972, provides that interest of the people of the hill areas should be safeguarded.",,,
The creation and upgradation of districts amount to development and economic growth. The people of hill areas have to be consulted as they are,,,
protected by their own social customs and rights guaranteed under Article 317C and therefore, it is mandatory for the authorities to first consult the",,,
Hill Areas Committee before formation of new districts. It is also further pleaded that in terms of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971,",,,
the hill areas cannot not be divided into more than 6 (six) autonomous districts without consulting the Hill Areas Committee. Therefore, the impugned",,,
order is bad. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated all the pleas as extracted above.,,,
Government’s Stand,,,
[10] Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by respondent No. 1. In particular, Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate General refers to Paragraph 2.1, 2.2,",,,
2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10 and 2.11 of the affidavit-in-opposition, to contend that the petitioners are misconceived, and based on a misreading",,,
readings of the law. The relevant portion of the respondents‟ reply is as follows:,,,
“2.1. That as a State Government policy for administrative convenience, after considering all the relevant aspects from different angles and also to",,,
meet the long standing demands of the general public for creation of new districts and in pursuance of the State Cabinet decision 7 (seven) new,,,
districts were created by bifurcating from the existing districts vide Government of Manipur, Secretariat Revenue Department Notification No.",,,
16/20/2016-R dated 8th December, 2016. In para 3 of the said notification/order which was rectified by Corrigendum dated 19-12-2016 it is clearly",,,
stated that “the district boundaries will be as per existing boundaries of the concerned Sub-Division andthe final boundary of the Districts of the,,,
State will be decided by the Government on the recommendation of a District Boundary Commission headed by a Retired Judge of the High Court,",,,
with Administrative Secretaries of Home, Revenue and Tribal Affairs & Hills of the State Government as membersâ€.",,,
The 7 (seven) new districts are as follows:,,,
(i) Jiribam District;,,,
(ii) Kangpokpi District;,,,
(iii) Kakching District;,,,
(iv) Tengnoupal District;,,,
(v) Kamjong District;,,,
(vi) Phrezawl District; and,,,
(vii) Noney District.,,,
That the notification dated 08-12-2016 for creation of 7 (seven) new Districts including 5 (five) new districts in Hill Areas were published in the,,,
Manipur Gazette Extraordinary No. 408 dated 9.12.2016 and Corrigendum dated 14-12-2016 in the Manipur Gazette Extraordinary No. 420 dated 14-,,,
12-2016 and subsequent corrigendum in respect of Para No.3 of the Notification dated 08-12-2016 was issued on 19-12-2016.,,,
2.2. That with the creation of these 7 (seven) new districts, proper Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Office of Superintendent of Police and other",,,
Offices have been established in these district for proper and effective administration of these new districts.,,,
True and correct copies of the Notification dated 08-12-2016, Corrigendum dated 14-12-2016 and corrigendum dated 19-12-2016 are annexed",,,
herewith and marked as ANNEXUREs â€" C/1 (Colly).,,,
2.3. That for creation of the said 5 (five) new districts in Hill areas of the State prior consultation of Hill Areas Committee constituted as per the,,,
Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972 is not required.",,,
2.4. That as per Para No.4(3) of the aforesaid Presidential Order of 1972, consultation of Hill Areas Committee is confined only to the scheduled",,,
matters i.e. matters specified in the Second Schedule of the said Presidential Order. But the creation of Districts is not included in the said scheduled,,,
matters and nowhere it is mentioned in the scheduled matters. As such, it is not necessary to consult the Hill Areas Committee for creation of new",,,
Districts in Hill Areas.,,,
2.5. That it is humbly submitted that creation of districts in the State is not a new one. When Manipur was merged to the Union of India it was a single,,,
district State but later on it was made into 5 (five) districts State in 1969. The five districts are (i) Central; (ii) North; (iii) East; (iv) South & (v) West.,,,
2.6. That in 1983, 3 (three) districts namely Imphal, Thoubal and Bishnupur were created from the Central District and the earlier Hill Districts were",,,
renamed as Senapati, Ukhrul, Churachandpur and Tamenglong, and Chandel District was created by merging some parts from Central District and",,,
Ukhrul District. In this regards and order was issued vide Order No. 43/2/81-R(Pt) dated 15-07-1983 (A/6 in the Writ Petition). Thereafter in 1987,",,,
Imphal District was carved into Imphal West & Imphal East Districts with Jiribam inside Imphal East District. As such before the creation of present,,,
7(seven) new districts vide Government Notification dated 08-12-2016. There were 9 (nine) Districts namely: -,,,
(i) Imphal West;,,,
(ii) Imphal East;,,,
(iii) Thoubal;,,,
(iv) Bishnupur;,,,
(v) Ukhrul;,,,
(vi) Tamenglong;,,,
(vii) Chandel;,,,
(viii) Senapati; and,,,
(ix) Churachandpur.,,,
2.7. That when districts were created, administrative convenience and historical boundaries were taken into consideration and in the mid-seventies",,,
some hill pockets in the valley were transferred to Senapati District under the Sadar Hills Sub-Division. The tendency to believe that each district is,,,
the domain of a particular tribe is a misinterpretation of the intent for creation of the District. Boundaries of the districts are strictly based on,,,
administrative convenience as well as convenience of the people residing in the said district. For settling issues of district boundary, a district Boundary",,,
Commission headed by a Retired Judge of High Court was constituted vide Government Notification dated 04-10-2017 under No. 16/20/2016-R(Pt)-,,,
II.,,,
2.8. That it is humbly submitted that smaller areas for governance increases its effectiveness as it is nearer to the people though there is an increase in,,,
the cost. Many villagers due to varied reasons such as distance from the district headquarter, populated by a minority community etc. feel that they",,,
are deprived from various benefits. The 9 (nine) districts as was existed before the creation of 7 (seven) new districts do not satisfy the aspiration of,,,
the people in various areas leading to demands for creation of more districts. Considering all the aspects it was felt that 2 (two) more districts in the,,,
valley are to be created i.e. Jiribam and Kakching. Jiribam from Imphal East because of its unique location which is far from the district headquarter,,,
some about 222 Kms, and Kakching from Thoubal District because of its unique position. And in the Hills as the areas are large though thinly",,,
populated with poor connectivity it was felt that 5 more districts were to be created by bifurcation the 5 (five) Hills Districts i.e. â€" (i)Senapati; (ii),,,
Ukhrul; (iii) Churachandpur; (iv) Tamenglong; and (v) Chandel.,,,
(i) Senapati District, considering its high population and greater territorial area, deserves to be bifurcated into 2(two) districts as Senapati and",,,
Kangpokpi. And creation of Kangpokpi as a District was the long demand of the people residing there;,,,
(ii) Ukhrul District the second biggest in terms of size also need bifurcating, as some areas are literally in accessible from the district headquarter.",,,
Erstwhile Chingai, Jessami, Lungchongâ€"Maiphai & Ukhrul Sub-Divisions to form Ukhrul District; and Kasom Khullen, Kamjong, Shamphung &",,,
Phungyar Sub-Divisions to form Kamjong District;,,,
(iii) Churachandpur is the biggest district in terms of size and for better administration a new Pherzawl District, where an ADC Office was already",,,
established, is to be created comprising of erstwhile Sub-Divisions of Parbungâ€"Tipaimukh, Pherzawl, Vangai Range & Thanlon; and Churachandpur",,,
District comprising of Singngat, Churachandpur, Henglep, Sangaikot, Tuibuong, Mualnuam, Kangvai, Samulamlan & Saikot Sub-Divisions;",,,
(iv) Tamenglong District to be bifurcated into 2 (two) Districts i.e. Tamenglong District comprising of Tamenglong, Tamei & Tousem Sub-Divisions;",,,
and Noney District comprising of Nungba, Khoupum, Longmai (Noney) & Haochong Sub-Divisions;",,,
(v) Chandel District to be bifurcated into 2 (two) Districts i.e. Chandel District comprising of Chandel, Chakpikarong & Khengjong Sub-Divisions; and",,,
Tengnoupal District comprising of Machi, Moreh & Tengnoupal Sub-Divisions, as those creations of new districts will provide the necessary fill up for",,,
further development of the border districts.,,,
As such, by implementation of the decision of the State Cabinet 7(seven) new districts were created vide Government Notification dated 08-12-2016",,,
bearing No.6/20/2016-R by bifurcating the existing districts and the same was published in the Manipur Gazette Extraordinary No. 408 dated 09-12-,,,
2016, and corrigendum dated 14-12-2016 & 19-12-2016 were also issued in this regard.",,,
Existing Districts                    New Districts,,,
A. Imphal East                       i) Imphal East,,,
                                              ii) Jiribam District,,,
B. Senapati District                i) Senapati District,,,
                                              ii) Kangpokpi District,,,
C. Thoubal District                i) Thoubal District,,,
                                              ii) Kakching District,,,
D. Chandel District               i) Chandel District,,,
                                              ii) Tengnoupal District,,,
E. Ukhrul District                   i) Ukhrul District,,,
                                              ii) Kamjong District,,,
F. Churachandpur District       i) Churachandpur District,,,
                                               ii) Pherzawl District,,,
G. Tamenglong District           i) Tamenglong District,,,
                                               ii) Noney District,,,
2.9 That the 7(seven) new districts were created as State policy for better administrative convenience and to meet the long pending demands of the,,,
people. There is no deprivation of any fundamental rights/ legal rights of any person in such creation of 7 (seven) new districts. The petitioners are not,,,
at all aggrieved by the creation of new districts and rather this creation will benefit the people including the Petitioners in many ways. Moreover, the",,,
creation of the 7 (seven) new districts is a policy of the State and the Petitioners have no right to challenge it.,,,
2.10. That the creation of new districts have not infringed any fundamental rights/ legal rights of petitioners and general public rather it benefited them,,,
in many ways. There is no unconstitutionality, illegality or infirmity in such creation of 7(seven) new districts as there is no violation of any",,,
Constitutional provisions or any Act and Rules.,,,
2.11. That it is humbly submitted that there is no deprivation of any fundamental or legal right or violation of any customary law of the tribal people in,,,
such creation of 5 (five) new districts in Hill Areas of Manipur.â€,,,
[11] After setting out the objective and rationale behind demarcation for creating new districts, the respondents submitted that the challenge to the",,,
impugned notification on the basis of Article 371C of the Constitution of India and the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order,",,,
1972, is misconceived. In paragraph 6.3 and 6.4, the respondents clearly states that the creation of new districts does not fall under the scheduled",,,
matters set out in Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972, and that there is no violation of Article 371C of the Constitution.",,,
It is also pleaded that the cabinet decision was taken which is based on a policy decision of the Government. Para 6.3 and 6.4 of the affidavit-in-,,,
opposition read as follows :,,,
“6.3. That it is submitted that creation of 7 (seven) new districts in Manipur which includes creation of 5 (five) new districts in Hill Areas of,,,
Manipur is the outcome of a Major Policy decision of the State which is not within the scheduled matters of the aforementioned Presidential Order,",,,
1972. In the circumstances, creation of the new districts in Hill Areas does not amount to violation of Article 371C the Constitution of India in any",,,
form.,,,
6.4. Further, the answering deponent begs to submit that the impugned order was issued in the name of the Governor of Manipur and creating of 7",,,
(seven) new districts which include 5 (five) in Hill Areas is in pursuance of a policy decision taken by the State Cabinet for administrative,,,
convenience.â€,,,
[12] Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned A.G. produced the original files relating to the cabinet decision as mentioned above to justify the above plea and the",,,
same was verified. The respondents further pointed out that if that the petitioners are only aggrieved by the boundaries of the new district, they can",,,
approach to the competent authority as stated in para 6.6 of the affidavit-in-opposition, which reads as follows :",,,
“6.6. That it is humbly submitted that if the Petitioners feel aggrieved by the boundaries of new districts in Hill Areas, they are at liberty to",,,
approach the proposed District Boundary Commission headed by a Retired Judge of High Court (which was duly constituted vide Order dated 04-10-,,,
2017).â€,,,
[13] Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate General, points out that the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Manipur Legislative",,,
Assembly provides for dealing with issues relating to the creation of districts. These rules are framed in terms of power conferred upon the State,,,
Government under Article 166 (2) & (3) of the Constitution of India. By virtue of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Manipur,,,
Legislative Assembly, the Government has taken the decision to create new districts. The Government is not dealing with an issue covered by",,,
Schedule to the Presidential Order, 1972, and therefore the petitioners‟ plea is without any legal basis and totally misconceived.",,,
[14] It is a clear stand of the Government that the Schedule to Presidential Order 1972 does not deal with creation of new districts. On the contrary,",,,
the Business of Government of Manipur (Allocation) Rules, 2009 framed under Article 166 (2) and (3) of the Constitution enables the Government to",,,
deal with the matters relating to creation of Districts, Sub-Divisions Tehsil and Villages and alteration of boundaries thereof by the Revenue",,,
Department, Government of Manipur. The State emphatically denies the contention of the petitioners that the Hill area Committee should be consulted",,,
for creation of new districts as misconceived and misplaced.,,,
Para 6.9 of the affidavit-in-opposition reads as follows:,,,
“6.9. That from the perusal of the Presidential Order of 1972 and the amendment in the Rules of Business of the Government of Manipur made,,,
under Article 166 (2) & (3) of the Constitution of India and Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Manipur Legislative Assembly, the matter",,,
relates to the resolution/recommendation originated from the Hill Areas Committee to the Government of Manipur any legislation or executive action,,,
affecting the hill Areas with respect to any of the scheduled matters. Nowhere in the scheduled maters there is mention of the creation of District.,,,
Under the Business of the Government of Manipur (Allocation) Rules, 2009, all matters relating to the creation of Districts, Sub-Divisions, Tehsil and",,,
Villages and alteration of boundaries thereof lies with the Revenue Department, Government of Manipur. Therefore, the submission made by the",,,
petitioners that the Hill Areas Committee has not consulted is misconceived and misplaced. The question of consulting or not consulting the Hill Areas,,,
Committee does not arise at all in the creation of the new districts in Hill Areas.â€,,,
Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the PIL.",,,
[15] Affidavit in rejoinder was filed by the petitioners on 11.06.2018 drawing reference to Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971 and",,,
reiterating what was pleaded earlier.,,,
[16] Additional reply affidavit dated 25.08.2018 has been filed by respondent No. 1 contending that reference to Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council,,,
Act, 1971 is totally misplaced because the scope of the Act does not in any way deal with formation of new Revenue Districts. The State Government",,,
is not in any way interfering with the provisions of Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act 1971. In this regard, Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate",,,
General referred to para 5, 6, 7, 8 9 & 10 of the additional affidavit of respondent No. 1, which read as follows :",,,
“5. That it is further submitted that the establishment of Autonomous District Councils in the Hill areas in Manipur under the provisions of the,,,
Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971 is not affected by the creation of 7 (seven) new revenue districts in Manipur.",,,
6. That under Section 3(1) of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971, the Hill areas in Manipur has been divided into not more than six",,,
Autonomous District Councils. In the circumstances, vide Government Notification No. 18/1/71-SC dated 14-02-1972, the Government of Manipur",,,
constituted 6 (six) autonomous districts under Section 3 of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971. They are as follows.",,,
1) Manipur North Autonomous District,,,
2) Sadar Hills Autonomous District,,,
3) Manipur East Autonomous District,,,
4) Tengnoupal Autonomous District,,,
5) Manipur South Autonomous District,,,
6) Manipur West Autonomous District.,,,
7. That in course of time, the names of the 6 (six) Autonomous Districts are now re-named as follows",,,
(1) Senapati Autonomous District Council, Senapati (This Council has its territorial jurisdiction in the present Senapati District, Manipur)",,,
(2) Sadar Hills Kangpokpi Autonomous District Council, Sadar Hills, Kangpokpi (This Council has its territorial jurisdiction in the present Kanpokpi",,,
District, Manipur)",,,
(3) Ukhrul Autonomous District Council, Ukhrul. (This Council has its territorial jurisdiction in Ukhrul and Kamjong Districts)",,,
(4) Chandel Autonomous District Council, Chandel (This Council has its area of operation in Chandel and Tengnoupal Districts)",,,
(5) Churachandpur Autonomous District Council, Churachandpur.",,,
(This Council has its territorial jurisdiction in Churachandpur and Pherzawl Districts),,,
(6) Tamenglong Autonomous District Council, Tamenglong",,,
(This Council has its territorial jurisdiction in Tamenglong and Noney Districts.),,,
8. That it is submitted that the constitution of Autonomous District Councils under the provisions of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act,",,,
1971 is a separate activities/process and the same is not related with the creation of Revenue Districts. Before the creation of these 7 (seven) new,,,
Revenue Districts there were 2 (two) Autonomous District Councils in Senapati (Manipur North) District ; viz.,,,
(1) Senapati Autonomous District Council, Senapati and (2) Sadar Hills Autonomous District Council, Sadar Hills, Kangpokpi.",,,
9. That in course of time the State of Manipur for administrative convenience in Hill Areas, may create more Autonomous District Councils if required",,,
by amending the provisions of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971. In such event the State is bound to consult the Hill Areas",,,
Committee.,,,
10. That it is re-iterated that the consultation of Hill Areas Committee is not at all required at the time of creation of the said 7 (seven) new Districts in,,,
Manipur or in the creation of Revenue District in Manipur as the same is not attracted by the provisions under Article 371C of the Constitution of,,,
India. â€,,,
 [17] In support of this affidavit, the notification dated 14.02.1972 and subsequent notifications have been enclosed. It is pleaded that the provisions",,,
of Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971 provides for creation of new autonomous districts. The State Government has not altered the",,,
autonomous district. No new autonomous district is formed. There is a marked and distinct difference between Revenue districts and Autonomous,,,
districts. They have an independent and specific role to play in the administration. The petitioners are deliberately confusing autonomous districts with,,,
regular revenue districts. If and when new autonomous districts are to be created, then consultation with Hill Areas Committee has to be undertaken.",,,
[18] The function of District Council has been clearly set out in Section 29 of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971, and it does not in",,,
any way deal with formation of new districts. Section 29 of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971 reads as follows :",,,
“Functions of District Councils,,,
29 (1) Subject to such exceptions and conditions as the Administrator may make and impose, the following matters shall be under the control and",,,
administration of a District Council, namely â€"",,,
i) the maintenance and management of such property, movable and immovable, and institutions as may be transferred to that Council by the",,,
Administrator;,,,
ii) the construction, repair and maintenance of such of the roads, bridges, channels and buildings as may be transferred to that Council by the",,,
Administrator;,,,
iii) the establishment, maintenance and management of primary schools and construction and repair of all buildings connected with these institutions",,,
and institution of scholarships;,,,
iv) the establishment, maintenance and management of dispensaries;",,,
v) the establishment and maintenance of cattle pounds including such functions under the Cattle-trespass Act, 1871 as may be transferred to that",,,
Council by the Administrator;,,,
vi) the establishment, maintenance and management of markets and fairs and the construction, repair and maintenance of all buildings connected",,,
therewith;,,,
vii) the supply, storage and prevention from pollution of water for drinking, cooking and bathing purposes;",,,
viii) the construction, repair and maintenance of embankments and the supply, storage and control of water for agricultural purposes.;",,,
ix) The preservation and reclamation of soil;,,,
x) the preservation, protection and improvements of livestock and prevention of animal diseases;",,,
xi) public health and sanitation;,,,
xii) the management of such ferries as may be entrusted to the charge of that Council by the Administrator;,,,
xiii) the initiation, inspection and control of relief works;",,,
xiv) the allotment, occupation or use, or the setting apart of land, other than land acquired for any public purpose or land which is a reserved forest, for",,,
the purpose of agriculture or grazing or for residential or other non-agricultral purposes or for any other purposes likely to promote the interest of the,,,
inhabitants of any village or town situated within the autonomous district for which that council is constituted;,,,
xv) the management of any forest not being a reserved forest;,,,
xvi) the regulation of the practice of Jhum or other form of shifting cultivation and;,,,
xvii) any other matter which the Administrator may, in consultation with the Hill Areas Committee, entrust to the District Council in the field of",,,
agriculture, animal husbandry, community development, social and tribal welfare, village planning or any other matter referred to in section 52 of the",,,
government of Union Territories Act, 1963.",,,
2. It shall be competent for a District Council to recommend to the Government of the Union territory of Manipur legislation relating to the following,,,
matters in so far as they concern members of the Scheduled Tribes, namely",,,
(a) appointment or succession of Chiefs;,,,
(b) inheritance of property;,,,
(c) marriage and divorce;,,,
(d) social customs;,,,
None of the above provides for consultation for formation of new districts. It is, therefore, pleaded that the petition has to be dismissed as it is based",,,
on misconception of law.,,,
Case laws relied upon by the petitioners,,,
[19] The petitioners counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported in (1996) AIR(SC),,,
11 and pleaded that the decision making process is faulted because the consultation with the Hill Area Committee as required under Presidential,,,
Order, 1972 has not been done and therefore, the impugned notification is bad. In the above case law, para 90, 91, 92, 93 & 94 which are relevant",,,
read as follows :,,,
“90. Judicial Review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application for judicial review is made, but",,,
the decision-making process itself.,,,
91. In Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [1982] 3 All ER 141 Lord Brightman said:,,,
“Judicial Review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made.",,,
Judicial Review is concerned, not with the decision, with the decision-making process. Unless that restriction on the power of the Court is observed,",,,
the Court will, in my view, under the guise of preventing the abuse of power, be itself guilty of usurping power.â€",,,
In the same case Lord Hailsham commented on the purpose of the remedy by way of judicial review under RSC Ord 53 in the following term:,,,
This remedy, vastly increased in the extent, and rendered, over a long period in recent years, of infinitely more convenient access than that provided",,,
by the old prerogative writs and actions for a declaration, is intended to protect the individual against the abuse of power by a wide range of",,,
authorities, judicial quasi-judicial, and, as would originally have been thought when I first practiced at the Bar, administrative. It is not intended to take",,,
away from those authorities the powers and discretions properly vested in them by law and to substitute the courts as the bodies making the decisions.,,,
It is intended to see that the relevant authorities are their powers in a proper manner, R v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin plc. Sir",,,
John Donaldson MR commented : „an application for judicial review is not an appeal‟. In lonrho plc v. Secretary of State for Trade and Indusry.,,,
Lord Keith said: „Judicial review is a protection and not a weapon.‟ It is thusdifferent from an appeal. When hearing an appeal the Court is,,,
concerned with the merits of the decision under appeal. In Re Amin, Lord Fraser observed that:",,,
“Judicial review is concerned not with the merits of a decision but with the manner in which the decision was made ...,,,
Judicial review is entirely different from an order appeal. It is made effective by the court quashing an administrative decision without substituting its,,,
own decision, and is to be contrasted with an appeal where the appellate tribunal substitutes its own decision on the merits for that of the",,,
administrative officer.â€,,,
92. In R v. Penal on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p Guinness plc [1990] 1 QB 146 Lord Donaldson MR referred to the Judicial review jurisdiction as",,,
being supervisory or „longstop‟ jurisdiction. Unless that restriction on the power of the courts is observed, the court will, under the guise of",,,
preventing the abuse of power, be itself guilty of usurping power.",,,
93. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be :,,,
1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers?,,,
2. committed an error of law,,,
3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice,,,
4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or,,,
5. abused its powers,,,
94. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only",,,
concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case, shortly put, the",,,
grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under :,,,
(i) Illegality: This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it.,,,
(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness,",,,
(iii) Procedural impropriety.,,,
[20] Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon decision of Supreme Court in the case of Asif hameed & Ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir &,,,
Ors. reported in (1989) AIR SC 1899, to plead that the Court can examine action of the Government whether it is in accordance with law and",,,
whether the Executive has acted within powers and functions assigned under Constitution.,,,
Failure to follow the edict of law, the Court should strike down such action.",,,
Relevant para 19 reads as follows:,,,
“19. When a State action is challenged, the function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with law and to determine whether the",,,
legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the Constitution and if not, the Court must strike-down the",,,
action. While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a coordinate branch of the,,,
Government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority. The Constitution does not",,,
permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the,,,
sphere of legislature or executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers.â€",,,
Decisions relied upon by the State,,,
[21] Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate General relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case ofS tate of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs.",,,
Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh & Anr. Reported in (2008) 5 SCC 550 to state that in matters of policy decision of the State Government, the scope of",,,
interference by the Court is limited. Relevant para 13 is as follows:,,,
“ 13. Cabinet‟s decision was taken nearly eight years back and appears to be operative. That being so there is no scope for directing,,,
reconsideration as was done in Ram Milan case, though learned counsel for the respondents prayed that such a direction should be given. As rightly",,,
contended by learned counsel for the State, in matters of policy decisions, the scope of interference is extremely limited. The policy decision must be",,,
left to the Government as it alone can decide which policy should be adopted after considering all relevant aspects from different angles. In matter of,,,
policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental rights is not shown, courts will have no",,,
occasion to interfere and the court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing,,,
the propriety of a decision of the government the court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government.â€,,,
[22] Another decision of the Supreme Court, relied upon by A.G. is Parisons Agrotech Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors reported in",,,
(2015) 9 SCC 657 in case relating to challenge to a notification under Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1972 restricting the import of",,,
crude palm oil through Kohci port . In this case, Supreme Court on the power of judicial review on the policy decision held in para 14, 15 & 19 as",,,
follows :,,,
“14. No doubt, the writ court has adequate power of judicial review in respect of such decisions. However, once it is found that there is sufficient",,,
material for taking a particular policy decision, bringing it within the four corners of Article14 of the Constitution, power of judicial review would not",,,
extend to determine the correctness of such a policy decision or to indulge into the exercise of finding out whether there could be more appropriate or,,,
better alternatives. Once we find that parameters of Article 14 are satisfied; there was due application of mind in arriving at the decision which is,,,
backed by cogent material ; the decision is not arbitrary or irrational and ; it is taken in public interest, the Court has to respect such a decision of the",,,
executive as the policy making is the domain of the executive and the decision in question has passed the test of judicial review.,,,
15. In Union of India v Dinesh Engg. Corpn., this Court delineated the aforesaid principle of Judicial review in the following manner : (SCC pp. 498-",,,
99, para 12)",,,
“12. There is no doubt that this Court has held in more than one case that where the decision of the authority is in regard to the policy mater, this",,,
Court will not ordinarily interfere since these policy matters are taken based on expert knowledge of the persons concerned and the courts are,,,
normally not equipped to question the correctness of a policy decision. But then this does not mean that the courts have to abdicate their right to,,,
scrutinize whether the policy in question is formulated keeping in mind all the relevant facts and the said policy can be held to be beyond the pale of,,,
discrimination or unreasonableness, bearing in mind the material on record ... Any decision, be it a simple administrative decision or a policy decision, if",,,
taken without considering the relevant facts, can only be termed as an arbitrary decision. If it is so, then be it a policy decision or otherwise, it will be",,,
violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.â€,,,
19. We would also like to refer to the judgment of this Court in Premier Tyres Ltd. v. Kerala SRTC wherein this Court held that when a policy,,,
decision is taken in the public interest, courts need not tinker with the same.",,,
[23] In policy matters, the role of Court is very limited has been reiterated by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Garg &",,,
Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Reported in (2009) 4 SCC 753. Para 15 reads as follows :,,,
“15. In our opinion, Article 14 should not be stretched too far, otherwise it will make the functioning of the administration impossible. The",,,
administrative authorities are in the best position to decide the requisite qualifications for promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer, and it",,,
is not for this Court to sit over their decision like a court of appeal. The administrative authorities have experience in administration, and the Court",,,
must respect this, and should not interfere readily with administrative decisions. (See Union of India v. Pushpa Rani and Official Liquidator v.",,,
Dayanand),,,
Analysis and Reasoning,,,
[24] In the present case, the impugned proceeding has been issued by the Governor of the State of Manipur in exercise of power under Article 154 of",,,
the Constitution which reads as follows :,,,
“154. Executive power of State :- (1) The executive power of the State shall be vested in the Governor and shall be exercised by him either,,,
directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution.,,,
(2) Nothing in this article shall-,,,
(a) be deemed to transfer to the Governor any functions conferred by any existing law on any other authority ; or,,,
(b) prevent Parliament or the Legislature of the State from conferring by law functions on any authority subordinate to the Governor.â€,,,
[25] The Governor while exercising such power under Article 154 will be limited to such extent as defined under article 162. This will be on the basis,,,
of the advice of the council of ministers as provided under Article 163 on whose advice, the impugned notification has been issued. Article 162 and",,,
163 of the Constitution read as follows :,,,
“162. Extent of executive power of State â€" Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of a State shall extend to the",,,
matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws;,,,
Provided that in any matter with respect to which the Legislature of a State and Parliament have power to make laws, the executive power of the",,,
State shall be subject to, and limited by, the executive power expressly conferred by this Constitution or by any law made by Parliament upon the",,,
Union or authorities thereof.\,,,
163. Council of Ministers to aid and advise Governor â€" (1) There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid advise the,,,
Governor in exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his",,,
discretion.,,,
(2) If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a mater as respects which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his,,,
discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question",,,
on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion.,,,
(3) The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the Governor shall not be inquired into any Court.â€",,,
[26] The conduct of Business of the Government of the State is governed by Article 166. The Business of the Government of Manipur (Allocation),,,
Rules, 2009 has been issued on 08.06.2009 amending the Business of Government of Manipur (Allocation) Rules, 1972 by virtue of clause 2 & 3 of",,,
Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Article 166 of the Constitution reads as follows:,,,
“166. Conduct of business of the Government of a State â€" (1) All executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken,,,
in the name of the Governor.,,,
(2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules,,,
to be made by the Governor, and the validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is",,,
not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor.,,,
(3) The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State, and for the allocation among",,,
Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his,,,
discretionâ€,,,
[27] Rule 30 of the Business of the Government of Manipur (Allocation) Rules, 2009, deals with Revenue Department. For better clarity, Rule 30 (viii)",,,
which relates to creation of Districts, Sub-divisions, Tehsil villages, Villages and alteration of boundaries, is extracted below :",,,
Business of the Government of Manipur (Allocation) Rules, 2009",,,
“30 REVENUE DEPARTMENT,,,
(viii) All matters relating to the creation of Districts, Sub-Divisions, Tehsil and Villages and alteration of boundaries thereof.â€",,,
[28] In the present case, the State Government relied upon the Business of the Government of Manipur (Allocation) Rules, 2009 framed under Article",,,
166 and on the basis of the advice of council of Ministers under Article 163 of the Constitution to exercise executive powers of the State as provided,,,
under Article 162 to form new districts. It is apparent from the above that the impugned notification is constitutionally valid for the aforesaid reason.,,,
[29] The contention of the petitioners that the impugned notification is bad on account of failure to comply with the procedural requirement of the,,,
Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971 and Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972 dated 10.07.1972. The",,,
petitioners relied upon Article 371C of the Constitution which reads as follows :-,,,
“371-C. Special provision with respect to the State of Manipur â€" Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the President may, by order made",,,
with respect to the State of Manipur, provide for the constitution and functions of a committee of the Legislative Assembly of the State consisting of",,,
members of that Assembly elected from the Hill Areas of that State, for the modifications to be made in the rules of business of the Government and",,,
in the rules of procedure of the Legislative Assembly of the State and for any special responsibility of the Governor in order to secure the proper,,,
functioning of such committee.,,,
(2) The Governor shall annually, or whenever so required by the President, make a report to the President regarding the administration of the Hill",,,
Areas in the State of Manipur and the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of directions to the State as to the administration of the,,,
said areas.â€,,,
[30] A reading of Article 371C of the Constitution and the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972 which was issued on",,,
10.07.1972 invoking the power under Article 371 C, it is evident that the Hill Areas Committee is constituted from amongst members of assembly who",,,
hail from the Hill areas and for the time being representing the Assembly constituencies situated wholly or partly in the hill areas of the State.,,,
[31] Order 4 of the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972 deals with functions of the Hill Areas Committee. Clause (3)",,,
of Order 4 provides that Hill Area Committee will have the right to consider and pass resolutions recommending to the Government of the State any,,,
legislation or executive action affecting the Hill Areas with respect to any scheduled matter.,,,
[32] Scheduled matter is defined in Order 2(f) and it deals with as follows :,,,
(1) Development and economic planning within the Plan allocations for the Hill Areas.,,,
(2) Constitution and power and functioning of District Councils in the Hill Areas,,,
(3) The allotment, occupation, or use, or the setting apart of land (other than any land which is a reserved forest) for the purposes of agriculture or",,,
grazing or for residential or other non-agricultural purposes or for any other purpose likely to promote the interests of the inhabitants of any village or,,,
town situated within the Hill areas.,,,
Provided that nothing in this item shall apply to lands acquired for any public purpose or the acquisition of land, whether occupied or unoccupied, for",,,
any public purpose in accordance with any law for the time being in force authorizing such acquisition.,,,
(4) The management of any forest not being a reserved forest.,,,
(5) The use of any canal or water course for purposes of agriculture.,,,
(6) The regulation of the practice of Jhum or other forms of shifting cultivation.,,,
(7) The establishment of village committees or Councils and their powers, and other matter relating to village administration.",,,
(8) Public health and sanitation.,,,
(9) The appointment or succession of Chiefs or Headman.,,,
(10) The inheritance of property.,,,
(11) Marriage and divorce,,,
(12) Social customs,,,
(13) Any other matter which the Assembly may by resolution declare to be a matter which shall come within the purview of the Hill Areas,,,
Committee.â€,,,
[33] From the above, it is very clear that none of the clauses in the schedule provides for the demarcation or creation of the district or for dealing with",,,
the issue relating to formation of new districts.,,,
[34] Even as per the Brief History of District Creation in Manipur, submitted by the petitioner and the respondent State, it is evident that Manipur was",,,
a single District between 18.01.1950 and 13.11.1969 in and by order dated 18.01.1950. It is pertinent to point out that the entire territory of the princely,,,
state of Manipur merged with the dominion of India on 15.10.1949. The entire territory of Manipur was divided into 5 districts, by Order no",,,
20/39/69â€"D, dated 12.11.1969 with effect from 14.11.1969, namely, (1) Manipur Central District, (2) Manipur North District, (3) Manipur South",,,
District (4) Manipur East District and (5) Manipur west District.,,,
Tengnoupal District was created on 13.5.1974. Thereafter, w.e.f 25.5.1983, three districts were carved out of Manipur Central District, namely, (1)",,,
Imphal District, (2) Bishnupur District and (3) Thoubal District.",,,
Thereafter in 1977, Imphal District was divided into two districts, namely, (1) Imphal East District and (2) Imphal West District. Thereafter, the",,,
present new 7 districts were created by the impugned notification dated 08.12.2016.,,,
[35] From this, it is clear that the creation of Districts has been happening from time to time by the order of the Government for the purpose of better",,,
administration and management of districts. It is an exercise for effective reach of the executive in pursuit of good governance which is the hallmark,,,
of the democracy.,,,
[36] The main thrust of the argument of the counsel for the petitioners is that the Presidential Order, (i.e.) the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill",,,
Areas Committee) Order, 1972, has been ignored and therefore, the impugned notification is bad has no legal basis. The said argument is a fallacy and",,,
legally not tenable.,,,
[37] Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate General rightly pleaded that this contention is legally not tenable and based on a misreading of the Article",,,
371C of the Constitution and the Presidential Order, 1972. The impugned provision does not in any way affects the right of the people of the hill areas",,,
because Article 371C provides for the formation of Hill Areas Committee constituted from amongst the elected representatives of the Assembly,,,
Constituency hailing from the hill areas for specified role set out in the schedule. That Presidential Order is the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill,,,
Areas Committee) Order, 1972. The presidential order, 1972 is well defined on its scope and extent and it specifically deals with the matter specified",,,
in the Schedule to the Presidential Order, 1972.",,,
On reading of the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972 and the schedule, there is no scope for the Government to seek",,,
the approval of the Hill Areas Committee for the purpose of formation a new district. When the statute does not provide for such a procedure, it is a",,,
fallacy to plead so. The impugned proceeding has been passed by the Governor on the basis of the aid and advice of the council of ministers and on,,,
the basis of the power vested with the Government, after following the procedure prescribed under the Business of the Government of Manipur",,,
(Allocation) Rules, 2009, framed under Article 166 of the Constitution, which specifically deals with formation of new districts. Hence, the action of",,,
the State in the formation of districts cannot be faulted.,,,
[38] Thus, the State has acted within its limit and power. It has not transgressed the Constitution mandate or any other provision of law. The action of",,,
the State Government in forming new districts cannot be faulted for any reason as pleaded.,,,
[39] Furthermore, in this case it is a policy decision of the State Government to further divide the districts for the welfare of the people. This has been",,,
clearly specified in the reply affidavit. It is intended for better reach and to ensure that the people of the far flung areas are better governed. The,,,
objective of the State Government is laudable. It is to be noted that the State of Manipur is mostly mountainous and the terrain is harsh and,,,
inaccessible. The creation of new districts will be to the benefit of the people of the particular area.,,,
[40] Therefore, dividing the districts into smaller districts for effective administration is a welcome measure and such a policy decision cannot be",,,
faulted or interfered with by way of judicial review as has been emphasized by the Supreme Court in so many decisions which have already been,,,
referred to above. The decision relied upon by the petitioner on judicial review of State action has no relevance to the facts of the present case. The,,,
proposition in Tata Cellular case (Supra) and the case of Asif hameed & Ors (Supra) will not apply to the facts of the present case as the law relied,,,
upon by the petitioners has no relevance to the issue of formation of new revenue districts.,,,
[41] The petitioners‟ contention that the autonomous hill district is sought to be interfered with, by the creation of new revenue districts is totally",,,
denied by the State Government and rightly so. The legislation on autonomous hill district operates on a different field. The formation of new districts,,,
is entirely on a different legal framework. The attempt of the petitioners to muddle the issue referring to the provisions of Manipur (Hill Areas) District,,,
Council Act, 1971 and the MLA (HAC) Order, 1972, is an attempt in thin air and deliberate misinterpretation of the provisions of the 1971 Act which",,,
has no application to the issue in the present case. The creation of revenue districts and the scope and power of autonomous hill districts are distinct,,,
and different. It cannot be clubbed together and create fiction as has been done by the petitioners. The Supreme Court in the case of K.T.M.S. Mohd.,,,
and Another. V Union of India reported in (1992) 3 SCC 178 has rejected such a plea as impermissible. Para 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 & 30 are as follows :",,,
“25. Needless to emphasise that the FERA and the I.T. Act are two separate and independent special Acts operating in two different fields.,,,
26. This Court in Ravula Subba Rao v. CIT has pointed out:,,,
“The Indian Income Tax Act is a self-contained Code exhaustive of the matters dealt with therein, and its provisions shown an intention to depart",,,
from the common rule, qui facit per alium facit per se.â€",,,
27. Further, in Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India, it has been observed thus:",,,
“It has to be remembered that the purpose of the Act is to levy income tax, assess and collect the same. The preamble of the Act does not say so",,,
in terms it being an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to income tax and super tax but that is the purpose of the Act as disclosed in the,,,
preamble of the First Indian Income Tax Act of 1886 (Act II of 1886). It follows, therefore, that all the provisions contained in the Act have been",,,
designed with the object of achieving that purpose.â€,,,
28. Coming to the FERA, it is a special law which prescribes a special procedure for investigation of breaches of foreign exchange regulations. Vide",,,
Shanti Prasad Jain v. Director of Enforcement. The proceedings under the FERA are quasi-criminal in character. It is pellucid that the ambit, scope",,,
and intendment of these two Acts are entirely different and dissimilar.,,,
29. Therefore, the significance of a statement recorded under the provisions of FERA during the investigation or proceeding under the said Act so as",,,
to bring them within the meaning of judicial proceeding must be examined only qua the provisions of FERA but not with reference to the provisions of,,,
any other alien Act or Acts such as I.T. Act.,,,
30. If it is to be approved and held that the authorities under the I.T. Act can launch a prosecution for perjury on the basis of a statement recorded by,,,
the Enforcement Officer then on the same analogy the Enforcement authority can also in a given situation launch a prosecution for perjury on the,,,
basis of any inculpatory statement recorded by the Income Tax authority, if repudiated subsequently before the Enforcement authority. In our opinion,",,,
such a course cannot be and should not be legally permitted.â€,,,
The above decision is a clear answer to the petitioners‟ confusion.,,,
[42] The Autonomous Hill Districts are governed by a separate legislation namely, the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971 as amended.",,,
There have been several amendments to the said Act. The autonomous districts are not relevant in so far as the formation of revenue districts are,,,
concerned. The State Government by the impugned proceeding has not in any way tampered with the existing autonomous districts which are,,,
governed by the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971 as amended.",,,
[43] In the reply affidavit, the State has emphatically denied the contention of the petitioners stating that under no circumstances, the impugned",,,
notification will have any effect in so far as the autonomous hill district council is concerned. The said contention has legal basis and is justified.,,,
Result,,,
[44] In the result, the contention of the petitioners that the impugned notification is in violation of the provision of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District",,,
Councils Act, 1971 or the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972 has no legal basis and the imputation of the petitioners",,,
that the impugned notification is arbitrary, irrational and unlawful cannot be sustained. All the above pleas are rejected as legally untenable and",,,
unsustainable.,,,
[45] We find no error in the impugned notification dated 08.12.2016. We hold that the State Government was well within its powers to issue the,,,
impugned notification. In the result, we find no merit in the P.I.L. and accordingly, the same is dismissed. For the aforesaid reasons, W.P. (C) No. 422",,,
of 2017 which is also on the same lines stands dismissed.,,,
No order as to cost.,,,
