Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs M.Ramkumar on 8 February, 2016
Bench: S.Manikumar, C.T.Selvam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.02.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
W.A.(MD).No.278 of 2016 &
C.M.P.(MD).No.1511 of 2016
1.The Secretary to Government
Department of School Education,
St.George Fort, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai-600 009.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Aranthangi,
Pudukottai District. .. Appellants/Respondents
versus
M.Ramkumar .. Respondent/Writ Petitioner
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order
dated 04.06.2015 in W.P.(MD).No.8895 of 2015, and allow the writ appeal.
!For Appellants : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
Special Government Pleader
^For respondent : Mr.K.Govindarajan
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR ,J.) On the submissions of Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader, that there is a suppression in filing the subsequent writ petition W.P.(MD).No.8895/2015, We directed the Registry to put up the entire bundle in W.P.(MD).No.18129/2013.
2. We have perused the order passed thereon. Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus sought for to quash the order of the District Educational Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District, in Na.Ka.No.1672/A1/2001, dated 13.06.2013, and consequential prayer for a direction to the respondents therein to provide employment assistance on compassionate ground, has been considered in detail and vide order, dated 11.11.2013, prayer sought for in W.P.(MD).No.18129 of 2013, has been negatived and writ petition has been dismissed.
3. At paragraph number 1 of the affidavit filed in the present W.P.(MD).No.8895 of 2015, the petitioner has stated that W.P.(MD).No.8895 of 2015 is the first writ petition filed by him, for the relief sought for. In the light of the dismissal of the earlier writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.18129 of 2013, challenging the very same proceedings impugned in another W.P.(MD).No.8895 of 2015, statement of the respondent is false. There is also suppression of the filing of the earlier writ petition, challenging the very same proceedings and orders passed thereon.
4. As regards suppression, useful reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Arunima Baruah v. Union of India reported in 2007 (6) SCC 120, wherein, at Paragraphs 11 to 14, it held as follows:
11. The court?s jurisdiction to determine the lis between the parties, therefore, may be viewed from the human rights concept of access to justice.
The same, however, would not mean that the court will have no jurisdiction to deny equitable relief when the complainant does not approach the court with a pair of clean hands; but to what extent such relief should be denied is the question.
12. .......It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands. But even if the said dirt is removed and the hands become clean, whether the relief would still be denied is the question.
13. In Moody v. Cox [(1917) 2 Ch. 71: (1916-17) All ER Rep 548 (CA)], it was held: (All ER pp. 555 I-556 D) "When one asks on what principle this is supposed to be based, one receives in answer the maxim that anyone coming to equity must come with clean hands. I think the expression ?clean hands? is used more often in the textbooks than it is in the judgments, though it is occasionally used in the judgments, but I was very much surprised to hear that when a contract, obtained by the giving of a bribe, had been affirmed by the person who had a primary right to affirm it, not being an illegal contract, the courts of equity could be so scrupulous that they would refuse any relief not connected at all with the bribe. I was glad to find that it was not the case, because I think it is quite clear that the passage in Dering v. Earl of Winchelsea [(1787) 1 Cox Eq Cas 318: 2 Bos & P 270], which has been referred to, shows that equity will not apply the principle about clean hands unless the depravity, the dirt in question on the hand, has an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for."
14. In Halsbury?s Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 16, pp. 874-76, the law is stated in the following terms:
?1303. He who seeks equity must do equity.?In granting relief peculiar to its own jurisdiction a court of equity acts upon the rule that he who seeks equity must do equity. By this it is not meant that the court can impose arbitrary conditions upon a plaintiff simply because he stands in that position on the record. The rule means that a man who comes to seek the aid of a court of equity to enforce a claim must be prepared to submit in such proceedings to any directions which the known principles of a court of equity may make it proper to give; he must do justice as to the matters in respect of which the assistance of equity is asked. In a court of law it is otherwise: when the plaintiff is found to be entitled to judgment, the law must take its course; no terms can be imposed.
* * * 1305. He who comes into equity must come with clean hands.?A court of equity refuses relief to a plaintiff whose conduct in regard to the subject- matter of the litigation has been improper. This was formerly expressed by the maxim ?he who has committed iniquity shall not have equity?, and relief was refused where a transaction was based on the plaintiff?s fraud or misrepresentation, or where the plaintiff sought to enforce a security improperly obtained, or where he claimed a remedy for a breach of trust which he had himself procured and whereby he had obtained money. Later it was said that the plaintiff in equity must come with perfect propriety of conduct, or with clean hands. In application of the principle a person will not be allowed to assert his title to property which he has dealt with so as to defeat his creditors or evade tax, for he may not maintain an action by setting up his own fraudulent design.
The maxim does not, however, mean that equity strikes at depravity in a general way; the cleanliness required is to be judged in relation to the relief sought, and the conduct complained of must have an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for; it must be depravity in a legal as well as in a moral sense. Thus, fraud on the part of a minor deprives him of his right to equitable relief notwithstanding his disability. Where the transaction is itself unlawful it is not necessary to have recourse to this principle. In equity, just as at law, no suit lies in general in respect of an illegal transaction, but this is on the ground of its illegality, not by reason of the plaintiff?s demerits.?
5. In Udayami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of U.P., reported in 2008 (1) SCC 560, at Paragraph 16, held as follows:
"15. 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/s.Madhya Death Khair Industries and Anr. [1980 (3) SC 311, this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt."
6. By filing a false affidavit the respondent/writ petitioner has obtained an order seeking for employment assistance on compassionate grounds. The conduct of the respondent/writ petitioner cannot be condoned.
7. In the light of the decisions stated supra and taking note of the conduct of the respondent, while allowing the writ appeal filed by the State, We deem it fit to impose costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to be paid by the respondent/writ petitioner, to the appellants, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If costs is not paid by the respondent/writ petitioner within the stipulated time, the appellants are at liberty to take action, under the Revenue Recovery Act. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
.