Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Akd Ashok Shaw vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 15 March, 2017
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1
23 15.03.17 W.P. 5866 (W) of 2017
Ct. No. 2
akd Ashok Shaw
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
--------
Mr. Debasis Sur.
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Prithwish Kumar Basu.
... for the State.
Mr. Sumon Basu.
... for the respondent nos. 2 & 3.
Mr. Soumo Choudhury.
... for the respondent nos. 5 & 6.
The present writ petition has been filed for direction upon the Mayor, Chandannagore Municipal Corporation to forthwith construct the guardwall preventing the dilapidated wall hanging upon the petitioner's premises and also to consider the representation made by the petitioner in this regard.
The writ petition proceeds that a lease was granted in the year 1986 to one Bijoli Shaw for a period of five years, which was renewed from time to time, in respect of Plot No. 384, Holding No. 79/78 at Dinemardanga Ditch Road, Gondolpara, P. S. Chandannagar. Subsequently it was decided to grant a lease in respect of 1 cuttah, 8 chittak, 16 sq. ft. in favour of the petitioner and the other plots of land in favour of three other persons including the said Bijoli Shaw.
2The petitioner is paying rates and taxes and mutated his name in the Municipal records. It is further stated that the said lease was further renewed for five years with effect from 5th October, 2016 till 14th May, 2021.
It is alleged that due to natural wear and tear a damage has been caused to the building and the southern part thereof is hanging on the drain and likely to fall down at any point of time, which may cause risk to the life of the family members of the petitioner.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts a representation was made for either restoration of the dangerous wall hanging on the said property or to construct a guardwall to prevent its falling on the other structure.
Apart from the aforesaid statements there is no whisper about the pendency of the suits between the parties and an order of status quo passed therein. Only in paragraph 5 of the said writ petition an incomplete sentence has been subsequently typed as "Suit also pending".
The learned advocate appearing for the private respondents says that there is gross suppression of material facts in the writ petition and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that count alone.
3My attention is drawn to one of such suits pending between the parties, being Title Suit No. 47 of 2006 instituted before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Chandernagore for declaration that the Municipal Authorities are bound to mutate the name of the private respondents instead of the said Bijoli Shaw and that the purported deeds of lease are illegal and not binding on the private respondents.
In the said suit an application for temporary injunction was filed and ultimately disposed of with consent of the parties to the said suit by directing the status quo to be maintained over the suit property as regards nature, character and possession thereof.
It is submitted by the private respondents that the other Title Suit for recovery of possession is also pending and a temporary injunction is also granted therein in the like manner.
There is no doubt on the proposition of law that the person must approach the Court with clean hand exercising equitable jurisdiction. The suppression of material facts are to be viewed seriously and jealously and a person, who is found to be guilty of the same, should not be extended with any blessings of the Court. Mere using the expression "suit also pending" does not absolve the petitioner to narrate and aver the facts involved therein in extenso.
4Such expression is used to avoid the aforesaid points being taken from the other side and boldly submitting to the Court that the factum of suits between the parties have not been suppressed. What is suppressed is the nature of the suits and the temporary injunction orders passed therein.
If the parties, by consent, allowed the status quo with regard to the nature, character and possession to be maintained, this Court feels that such party must categorically and expressly indicate the facts involved therein and cannot escape from using such expression in truncated manner.
There is an apparent suppression of facts, which disentitles the petitioner to get any relief from the Court exercising equitable jurisdiction. Solely on the above premise this Court does not find that the relief claimed in the writ petition should be granted in favour of the petitioner.
The writ petition is thus dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authorities, who shall keep the said amount in an Account earmarked for Juvenile, within two weeks from date.
(HARISH TANDON, J.) 5