Chattisgarh High Court
Gopalchandra Agrawal vs Food Corporation Of India & Others on 13 August, 2010
Author: I.M.Quddusi
Bench: I.M.Quddusi
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH : BILASPUR
WPC No 1068 of 2010
Gopalchandra Agrawal
...Petitioners
Versus
Food Corporation of India & others
...Respondents
! Shri AK Prasad Advocate along with the petitioner
^ Shri BP Gupta Advocate for the respondents No 1, 2 & Shri Kishore Bhaduri Advocate with Shri Shrigith CS Nair Advocate fo
CORAM : Honble Mr IM Quddusi & Honble Mr NK Agarwal JJ
Dated : 13/8/2010
: Judgement
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
O R D E R (oral)
( Passed on this 13th day of August, 2010 ) Per I.M.Quddusi, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 4.3.2010 (Annexure P/1), whereby the contract for Rail head H&T - Neora has been awarded to the respondent No.3.
3. At the very out set it is necessary to mention that the petitioner, after approaching the Civil Court by filing Civil Suit No. 22-A/2010 on 8.3.2010 before the Seventh Additional District Judge, Raipur, has filed the instant writ petition on 10.3.2010 i.e. just after two days of the filing of the civil suit, without disclosing the fact that he had filed the civil suit and concealed this fact deliberately.
4. In paragraph 6 of the instant writ petition "Matter not previously filed or pending with any other competent Court of law", the petitioner has made a declaration, which reads as under :
"The petitioner declares that he has not filed any petition in relation to the present subject matter in any other Court of Law or Tribunal".
5. The relief claimed in the above civil suit as well as in the instant writ petition is with regard to the contract `Rh-H&T Contract work for Neora (Old & New Complex)' awarded to the respondent No.3 namely M/s Verma Transport and the petitioner wanted that the bid should be cancelled and the contract should not be awarded to the respondent No.3. He had raised objection before the authorities concerned also.
6. Further, the petitioner has made an impression to this Court that his offer was at the rate of 41.1% ASOR, whereas the offer of the respondent No.3 was at the rate of 78% ASOR, while in fact, in the fresh tender in question the offer of the petitioner was at the rate of 87% ASOR, whereas the officer of the respondent No.3 was at the rate of 78% ASOR. This was written by the petitioner in the writ petition to give an impression that the petitioner, who was working at the rate of 41.1% ASOR, has been ignored and the respondent No.3, who quoted the higher rate than the petitioner, has been accepted. The relevant paragraph 8.27 is quoted below :
" 8.27 That, while accepting the tender bid of respondent no.3, the present rate of the petitioner i.e. 41.1% ASOR has been ignored and the higher rate of respondent no.3 was accepted, which is 76% ASOR "
7. In fact the respondent No.3 had offered the rate of 78% ASOR but on negotiation it has come down to 76% ASOR.
8. The N.I.T. was in respect of `Rh-H&T Contract work for Neora (Old & New Complex)'. The grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is mainly that the respondent No.3 was not having the sufficient experience as he had not worked for more than 25% of the value of the contract to be awarded. In this regard on the complaint, the respondents No. 1 and 2 had got conducted an enquiry and according to their enquiry report the respondent No.3 was having the sufficient work experience. We have also seen the investigation report as well as the experience certificate, issued by the company, which awarded work to the respondent No.3. Besides this, we have also perused the tax audit report for the assessment year 2009-10, issued by the chartered accountant, according to which the nature of business or profession of the respondent No.3 is Transportation works (Hamali & Transporting). The total turn over for the assessment year 2009-10 has been mentioned at serial No. 32, as Rs. 2,75,30,006/-, which is more than the requirement.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances, mentioned above, no case for interference is made out. However, since the petitioner has not come with clean hands and concealed the fact of filing civil suit as well as quoting his offer which was at the rate of 87% ASOR and mentioning the offer of the respondent No.3, misleading the Court, regarding mentioning his rate which was the outcome of the earlier tender, amounts to contempt of Court. But in the facts and circumstances and as there is catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein in case of deliberate concealment of fact to mislead Court, the writ petition was dismissed with heavy costs, we do not proceed to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Syal v. State of Punjab { (2003) 9 SCC 401} has held as under :
"24. In order to sustain and maintain the sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the court, when a court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does so at its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take the consequences that follow on account of its own making. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment by courts in dealing with such matters is either mistaken or lightly taken instead of learning a proper lesson. Hence there is a compelling need to take a serious view in such matters to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of justice."
11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others { (2008) 12 SCC 481}, relying on a decision in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commrs.
{ (1917) 1 KB 486}, has held as under :
"34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.
39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs. is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled hands". 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."
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. { (2010) 2 SCC 114}, wherein the appellant's grievance was that before finalizing his case the prescribed authority did not give notice to his predecessor (the tenure-holder) and on scrutiny of records it was found that the prescribed authority had issued notice which was duly served on the predecessor of the appellant, it was held that the appellant was not entitled to relief because he did not approach the High Court with clean hands inasmuch as he made a misleading statement in the writ petition giving an impression that the tenure-holder did not know of the proceedings initiated by the prescribe authority. In preface and paragraph 24 it was held that "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, the 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. 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." (also see Oswal Fats and Oils Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and others { (2010) 4 SCC 728}
13. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the instant writ petition should be dismissed with costs.
14. In the result the writ petition is dismissed with cost, assessed as Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand). Since the petitioner is present in person along with his learned counsel, it is directed that the petitioner shall positively deposit the cost with the Registry within a period of one month from today. On such deposit of cost, the Registry shall remit the amount of cost to the Chhattisgarh State Legal Services Authority. If this order is not complied with, as above, the Registry shall take appropriate steps.
J U D G E
J U D G E