Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 June, 2022
Author: Maninder S Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
ON THE 27th OF JUNE, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 7132 of 2019
Between:-
JAGDISH SINGH THAKUR S/O SHRI K.S. SINGH ,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: OFFICE
ASSTT. GRADE-3, MPMKVV CO. LTD. SUB
DIVISION SOUTH BETUL R/O. I.T.I. IN FRONT OF
MANAS NAGAR BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI A.K. SINGH, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR THE
SECRETARY ENERGY DEPT. VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P.M.K.V.V CO.
LTD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. GENERAL MANAGER M.P.M.K.V.V CO. LTD.
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPREINTENDENT ENGINEER M.P.M.K.V.V CO.
LTD DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ABHISHEK ARJARIA, RESPONDENT NO.2)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition while praying for following relief :
Signature Not Verified SAN1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Digitally signed by SHUBHAM THAKKER to the respondents to pay salary from 04.06.2011 to 28.06.2012 Date: 2022.07.02 12:51:25 IST with 10% interest till payment.2
2. And further be pleased to quash the condition of B and C of the annexure P/1 and P/1(A).
3. Any other relief or direction or order deems fit in the circumstances of the case may kindly be awarded in favour of petitioner along with cost of this petition.
The facts narrated in the petition in total 3 short paragraphs reflect that the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the services and, thereafter he was reinstated by the order dated 01.06.2012 which is brought on record in Annexure P/1, but the petitioner has not been paid the salary for the period of commencing from compulsorily retirement till the date of reinstatement.
Thereafter, a detailed rejoinder has been filed after filing of the return of the respondent and the petitioner has made an attempt to bring the other documents on record. The petitioner submits that he is entitled for the salary for the aforesaid period inasmuch as, the order of compulsory retirement was recalled and petitioner was reinstated in service.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that the petitioner was retired compulsorily by order dated 04.06.2011. He was reinstated back in service vide order dated 01.06.2012, the same has been filed with the rejoinder as Annexure P/4. A perusal of order shows that the same was a conditional order, as 3 conditions were incorporated in para 4 of the order. The para 4 of the order is reproduced herein :
" ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; tcyiqj }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds vuq'kj.k esa vfuok;Z lsokfuOk`fRr laca/kh vH;kosnu lfefr dh vuqdwy vuq'kalk ij rRdkyhu izca/k lapkyd ds vuqe ksnu ij bl dk;kZy; ds vkns'k fnukad 01-06-2012 }kjk fuEu 'krksZ ds v/khu lsok ess cgky fd;k x;k &
(v) deZpkjh dks lsok i`Fkd fnukad ls mifLFkfr fnukad dk osru ^^dk;Z ugha rks osru Signature Not Verified ugha** (No work No Wages) ds fl)kar ij ns; ugha gksxk] fdarq isa'ku ,oa inksUufr ds SAN ekeyksa esa bl vof/k dks fu;ekuqlkj x.kuk esa 'kkfey fd;k tk,xkA Digitally signed by SHUBHAM THAKKER Date: 2022.07.02 12:51:25 IST
(c) deZpkjh dks vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fRr vkns'k ds lkFk fd;s x;s rhu ekg ds osru Hkqxrku dks ,d eq'r okfil tek djk;k tk,A 3
(l) deZpkjh dks lsokfuo`fRr mijkar ns; Hkqxrku gsrq tkjh vkns'kksa dks fujLr djrs gq, izkIr fd;s x;s leLr Hkqxrkuksa dh jkf'k ,deq'r okfil tek djkbZ tk,A "
Thus, counsel for respondent submits that the petitioner was directed to deposit back salary of 3 months which was paid to the petitioner along with the order of compulsorily retirement. The order also contained a condition that the retiral benefit which were extended to the petitioner upon his compulsory retirement were also to be refunded back by the petitioner. Therefore a specific direction was issued to the petitioner to deposit entire amount.
Learned counsel for respondent further submits that this order was acted upon by the respondents and, thereafter vide order dated 18.06.2016 Annexure R/1 the petitioner was called upon to deposit sum of Rs. 7,719,150/- in pursuance of order dated 01.06.2012. The petitioner while assailing the order dated 18.06.2016 filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No.10494/2016. A memorandum of the petition has been brought on record. While referring to the relief clause, learned counsel for respondent submits that the sole challenge in the petition was as regards the order dated 18.06.2016 and not the order dated 01.06.2012. Accordingly, the said writ petition being W.P. No. 10494/2016 came up for a hearing before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the Co-ordinate Bench while recording the contention of the petitioner in para 2 that he was willing to deposit the amount as per order dated 01.06.2012 in 3 years time, further observed that since the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 01.06.2012, thus, he had no other option but to repay the said amount. Therefore, the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.11.2016 and the petitioner was directed to comply with the order dated Signature Not Verified SAN 01.06.2012 by 31.12.2017. Thus, the counsel for the respondent submits that Digitally signed by SHUBHAM THAKKER Date: 2022.07.02 12:51:25 IST the order dated 01.06.2012 has already attained finality and the petitioner has 4 suppressed the fact as regards the filing of the writ petition i.e. W.P. No.10494/2016 and also suppressed the fact as regard the passing of order by this Court therein.
The counsel while taking this Court to para 2 of this writ petition submits that there is suppression as regards the filing of the aforesaid W.P. No.10494/2016 and, therefore the writ petition has not approached this Court with clean hands.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The concealment of material facts and suppression itself is sufficient to decline adjudication of lis on merits. The Apex Court in para 33 in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449 held as under :
33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.
The Apex Court again in para 16 in the case of Udyami Evam Khadi Signature Not Verified SAN Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Digitally signed by SHUBHAM THAKKER Date: 2022.07.02 12:51:25 ISTreported in (2008) 1 SCC 560 held as under :
516. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries [(1980) 3 SCC 311 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 688] this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt.
The Apex Court in para 38 and 39 in the case of K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 held as under
:
38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because "œthe court knows law but not facts".
39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs. [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)] is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and "œclean breast" cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled hands"ÂÂÂÂ. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court.Signature Not Verified
SAN Further the Apex Court in para 1 and 2 in the case of Dalip Singh Vs. Digitally signed by SHUBHAM THAKKER Date: 2022.07.02 12:51:25 IST State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 held as under :
61. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. "satya" (truth) and ahimsa" (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up.
Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
The Apex Court in the case of Kishore Samrite Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2013) 2 SCC 398 held as under :
32. The cases of abuse of process of court and such allied matters have been arising before the courts consistently. This Court has had many occasions where it dealt with the cases of this kind and it has clearly stated the principles that would govern the obligations of a litigant while approaching the court for redressal of any grievance and the consequences of abuse of process of court. We may recapitulate and state some of the principles. It is difficult to state such principles exhaustively and with such accuracy that would uniformly apply to a variety of cases. These are:
32.1. Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with "œunclean hands". Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor are entitled to any relief.
32.2. The people, who approach the court for relief on an ex parte statement, are under a contract with the court that they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court and where the litigant has broken Signature Not Verified SAN such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant.Digitally signed by SHUBHAM THAKKER Date: 2022.07.02 12:51:25 IST 7
32.3. The obligation to approach the court with clean hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by this Court. 32.4. Quests for personal gains have become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood and misrepresent and suppress facts in the court proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent have overshadowed the old ethos of litigative values for small gains.
32.5. A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
32.6. The court must ensure that its process is not abused and in order to prevent abuse of process of court, it would be justified even in insisting on furnishing of security and in cases of serious abuse, the court would be duty-bound to impose heavy costs.
32.7. Wherever a public interest is invoked, the court must examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine public interest involved.
The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.
32.8. The court, especially the Supreme Court, has to maintain the strictest vigilance over the abuse of process of court and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted ""œvisa"ÂÂÂÂ. Many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed grievances and the court should endure to take cases where the justice of the lis well justifies it. (Refer:
Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. [(2010) 2 SCC 114 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 324] , Amar Singh v. Union of India [(2011) 7 SCC 69 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 560] and State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal [(2010) 3 SCC 402 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 81 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 807] .) If the present petition is scrutinized while taking into consideration, the above settled proposition of law, the petitioner herein is guilty of suppression of material facts and, therefore does not deserves adjudication of the dispute on merit. Thus, in the light of Prestige Lights Ltd. (supra), this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition on merit.
The present petition is apparently creates illusion of cause of action. The body of the petition in fact is an example of clever drafting. The Apex Court in Signature Not Verified SAN para 5 in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. reported in Digitally signed by SHUBHAM THAKKER (1977) 4 SCC 467 has held as under :
Date: 2022.07.02 12:51:25 IST5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the 8 gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and un-repentently resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful 'not formal' reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr. XI) and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi:
"It is dangerous to be too good."
Thus, if the petition is scanned by above angle, the same is an attempt of clever drafting. The petitioner while suppressing the fact as regards the filing of W.P. No.10494/2016 has filed this petition. The petitioner has also suppressed the fact that he had given an undertaking to deposit the amount in time span of 3 years however, subsequently has filed this petition while suppressing the entire material facts. The present petition contains 3 paras pertaining to the facts of the case, thus upon perusal of the same, it appears to be a petition containing an innocuous prayer for payment of salary, whereas the petitioner is guilty of suppressio veri as well as suggestio falsi having not disclosed filing of the earlier petition being W.P. No.10494/2016 and the order passed therein.
The petitioner having acquiesced to order dated 01.06.2012 and having admitted to deposit the amount mentioned therein can not pray for reliefs sought for in this petition. It is deplorable that even after filing of return by the respondents disclosing factum of filing of W.P. No.10494/2016 and the order Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SHUBHAM THAKKER Date: 2022.07.02 12:51:25 IST passed therein, the petitioner neither amended the petition nor furnished any 9 satisfactory explanation in respect of suppression.
Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the petition deserves to be and is dismissed with the cost of Rs.25,000/- which will be paid by the petitioner to the Legal Aid Services Authority within a period of 60 days from today. If the cost is not deposited by the petitioner within the aforesaid period, the office is directed to place the matter again before this Court under the head of the non-compliance of the order only.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S BHATTI) JUDGE Shub Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SHUBHAM THAKKER Date: 2022.07.02 12:51:25 IST