Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pankaj Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Others on 5 April, 2023
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 680 of 2023
.
Decided on : 5.4.2023
Pankaj Sharma
...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others
...Respondents
____________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? No
________________________________________________
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General
with Mr. Navlesh Verma and Mr.
Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional
Advocates General and Ms.
Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy
Advocate General, for the
respondentsState.
Per Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral):
The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:
"(i) That recalling of the tender for medicine shop No. 4 at regional Hospital Bilaspur (HP) dated 23.1.2023 as Annexure P5 may be quashed and set aside in the interest of law and justice;
(ii) That the order dated 17.1.2023 as annexure P4 whereby respondent No. 3 has informed that petitioner is unsuccessful bidder as per terms and conditions of tender, may be quashed and set aside in the interest of law and justice;
(iii) That respondents may be directed to award tender to the petitioner being highest bidder, for medicine Shop No. 4 at regional Hospital Bilaspur (HP), in terms of tender as annexure P1 in the interest of law, justice and fair play."::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2023 20:33:42 :::CIS 2
2. The tenders were invited by respondents No. 3 and 4 for renting out Medicine Shop at Regional Hospital, Bilaspur. According to the petitioner, since the highest bidder, who had offered a sum of .
Rs. 1,41,000/, had surrendered the tender on 19.12.2022, therefore, the tender of Rs. 92,000/ as monthly rent should have been awarded to the petitioner. But, what the petitioner failed to disclose was that the highest bidder was none other than his wife, Smt. Pooja Pal, who in the capacity of Managing Director, N.R. Hospital, Chandpur, Bilaspur and in connivance with the petitioner, had tried to gain the tender in an unusual and fraudulent manner.
3. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner has though sought equitable remedy of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but has not approached the Court with clean hands. 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 the High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any 7 reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part 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 the merits of the matter. (Refer: Prestige Lights Ltd. vs. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449).
4. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior Court must come with a pair of clean hands.
::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2023 20:33:42 :::CIS 35. It is well settled law that a Court of Law is a Court of equity and in granting relief under Article 226, the Courts will bear in mind the conduct of the party, who invokes the jurisdiction. This .
principle emanates from the very nature of the power of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India i.e. a discretionary jurisdiction. Nondisclosure of full facts or suppression of relevant materials or otherwise misleading the Court would disentitle a party to any relief. A person, who approaches the Court for justice, must come with clean hands and not one, who deliberately attempts to
6. As observed deflect the Court from the true path of justice by leading the Court to injustice.
above, since writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction, a petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed material facts in his petition. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and others (2004) 7 SCC 166, Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi and another vs. State of Gujarat and others (2007) 4 SCC 241, Arunima Baruah vs. Union of India and others (2007) 6 SCC 120, Prestige Lights Ltd. vs. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449, Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar vs. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar (2009) 9 SCC 310.
7. Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants, who with intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts. Courts have held that ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2023 20:33:42 :::CIS 4 such litigants, who have come with unclean hands are not entitled to be heard on the merits of their case. (Refer: Dalip Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (2010) 2 SCC 114, Amar Singh vs. .
Union of India and others (2011) 7 SCC 69).
8. In Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2013) 2 SCC 398, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 32 to 36 has observed as under:
"32.The cases of abuse of the 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 the 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 'unclean hands'.
Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor 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 such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant.
32.3. The obligation to approach the Court with clean hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2023 20:33:42 :::CIS 5 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 the process the 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 strictest vigilance over the abuse of the process of court and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted "visa". Many societal pollutants create new problems of 11 unredressed grievances and the Court should endure to take cases where the justice of the lis welljustifies it. [Refer : Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114; Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 69 and State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402].
33. Access jurisprudence requires Courts to deal with the legitimate litigation whatever be its form but decline to exercise jurisdiction, if such litigation is an abuse of the process of the Court. In P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam & Anr. (1980) 3 SCC 141, the Court held:
(SCC p.148, paras 1516) ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2023 20:33:42 :::CIS 6 "15. The crucial significance of access jurisprudence has been best expressed by Cappelletti:
'The right of effective access to justice has emerged with the new social rights. Indeed, it is of paramount importance among these new rights since, clearly, the enjoyment of .
traditional as well as new social rights presupposes mechanisms for their effective protection. Such protection, moreover, is best assured be a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system. Effective access to justice can thus be seen as the most basic requirement the most basic 'humanright' of a system which purports to guarantee legal rights.'
16. We are thus satisfied that the bogey of busybodies blackmailing adversaries through frivolous invocation of Article 136 is chimerical. Access to justice to every bona fide seeker is a democratic dimension of remedial jurisprudence even as public interest litigation, class action, pro bono proceedings, are. We cannot 12 dwell in the home of rprocessual obsolescence when our Constitution highlights social justice as a goal. We hold that there is no merit in the contentions of the writ petitioner and dismiss the petition."
34. It has been consistently stated by this Court that the entire journey of a Judge is to discern the truth from the pleadings, documents and arguments of the parties, as truth is the basis of the Justice Delivery System.
35. With the passage of time, it has been realised that people used to feel proud to tell the truth in the Courts, irrespective of the consequences but that practice no longer proves true, in all cases. The Court does not sit simply as an umpire in a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat as to who has won and who has lost but it has a legal duty of its own, independent of parties, to take active role in the proceedings and reach at the truth, which is the foundation of administration of justice. Therefore, the truth should become the ideal to inspire the courts to pursue. This can be achieved by statutorily mandating the Courts to become active seekers of truth. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehood, must be appropriately dealt with. The ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2023 20:33:42 :::CIS 7 parties must state forthwith sufficient factual details to the extent that it reduces the ability to put forward false and exaggerated claims and a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands. It 13 is the bounden duty of the Court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal .
process must be effectively curbed and the Court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorised or unjust gain to anyone as a result of abuse of the process of the Court. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic or punitive costs.
36. The party not approaching the Court with clean hands would be liable to be nonsuited and such party, who has also succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently false statements, cannot claim relief, especially under Article 136 of the Constitution. While approaching the court, a litigant must state correct facts and come with clean hands. Where such statement of facts is based on some information, the source of such information must also be disclosed. Totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the court and such a litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as a petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the process of the court. A litigant is bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts". (Refer :
Tilokchand Motichand & Ors. v. H.B. Munshi & Anr. [1969 (1) SCC 110]; A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam & Anr. [(2012) 6 SCC 430]; Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [(1995) 1 SCC 421]; Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India & Ors. [(2011) 6 SCC 145]; State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Narmada Bachao Andolan & Anr. [(2011) 7 14 SCC 639]; Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India & Anr. [(2011) 3 SCC 287)]".
9. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, we need not to enter into the merits of the case, as the petitioner has resorted to falsehood. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2023 20:33:42 :::CIS 8 Rs.1,00,000/which be paid to the H.P. High Court Advocates' Welfare Association
10. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
.
11. For compliance, to come up on 10.5.2023.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Virender Singh) Judge 5.4.2023 Kalpana ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2023 20:33:42 :::CIS