Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Haryana State Cooperative ... vs Additional Chief Secretary ... on 20 February, 2025
CWP-4862-2025
2025 (O&M)
Sr. No.114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP
CWP-4862-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 20.02.2025
The Haryana State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank
Limited Panchkula ...Petitioner
Versus
Additional Chief Secretary, Cooperation Department
Department, Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Rajvir Singh Sihag, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ajay Vijarania, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
***
LAPITA BANERJI,
BANERJI J. (Oral)
In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Bank petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated September 5, 2024 (Annexure P-5)
5) passed in revision petition No.56 of 2024 'The Haryana State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Develop Development Bank Retired Employees Welfare Association through its Secretary Prahlad Singh Vs. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Haryana and another another' by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Coo Cooperation Department, Chandigarh-respondent Chandigarh No.1.
2. The facts of the t case, in brief, are set out hereinafter:
hereinafter:-
i) Vide office order dated April 13, 2005 (Annexu (Annexure P-2), the petitioner-
bank unanimously resolved to extend medical facilities to the retired employees and their dependents at par with the serv serving employees of VANDANA the bank.
2025.02.25 13:00 Page 1 of 7I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-4862-2025 2025 (O&M)
ii) Vide Resolution dated August 9, 2017, the petition petitioner-bank modified the aforesaid Resolution Resolution and restricted reimbursement to the retired employees and their spouses to the tune of Rs.2 lakh.
iii) The said Resolutions Resolutions were sent to the office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies-respondent Societies respondent No.2 for necessary approval under Section 37 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (for short "the 1984 Act").
Act")
iv) Respondent No.2 rejected the approval of the aforesaid Respondent Resolutions on May 28, 2024 (Annexure P P-4).
v) The rejection order dated May 28, 2024 was challenged in revision.
vi) Vide order dated September 5, 2024, the Additional Chief Secretary respondent No.1 set aside the impugned order passed by Secretary-respondent the Registrar and approved the Resolution esolution date dated February 23, 2005 granting medical reimbursement benefits to the retired employees of the bank at par with the existing employees. The said order is impugned in the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner petitioner-bank submits mits that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is not sustainable in the eye of law since the financial implications on the petitioner-bank bank has not been taken into consideration by respondent No.1 before passing the aforesaid order.
4. He places reliance on an order dated January 28, 2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.2263-2025 No.2263 "The The Kiloi Primary Agriculture Co Co-
operative Society Limited Vs. State of Haryana and others others" to submit that VANDANA 2025.02.25 13:00 Page 2 of 7 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-4862-2025 2025 (O&M) the issue raised in that writ petition is similar to the issue raised in the present writ petition.
5. He submits that since since respondent No.1 without giving an opportunity of hearing in breach of principles of natural justice and also in breach of the Statutory Provisions had passed the impugned order in revision underr Section 115 of the 1984 Act, the same should be set aside.
6. Issue notice to the respondents.
7. Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2.
8. Mr. Ajay Vijarania, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent dent No.3 and submits that the present writ petition should be dismissed in limine since material facts have been suppressed by the petitioner-Bank Bank in filing the writ petition. He hands over a written communication dated October 14, 2024 vide letter No.EA/HDB/2024/26080 HDB/2024/26080 whereby the petitioner petitioner-bank itself had written to the Registrar--respondent respondent No.2 to implement the impugned order dated September 5, 2024 passed by the he Additional Chief Secretary Secretary. The petitioner bank itself prayed for grant of necessary approval under Section 37 of the 1984 Act.
9. Next he submits that a contempt petition bearing COCP COCP-4897- 2024 is pending before a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court. In the said contempt petition, a compliance report has been ffiled by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies wherein the letter lette sent by the petitioner petitioner-bank seeking approval of the Registrar for compliance of the order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary on September 5, 2024 has been annexed. VANDANA 2025.02.25 13:00 Page 3 of 7 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-4862-2025 2025 (O&M)
10. Therefore, he submits submits that on one hand hand, the petitioner-bank is trying to take the shield of the letter dated ed October 14, 2024 before the Court hearing the contempt case and on the other hand hand, has filed the present writ petition for setting aside the order passed by the A Additional Chief Secretary without bringing on record the material facts.
11. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
12. Admittedly, the petitioner-bank petitioner bank has w written the letter dated October 14, 2024 for compliance co of the impugned order dated September 5, 2024 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Registrar Registrar-respondent No.2. Neither the said fact has been pleaded in the present writ petition nor the letter dated October 14, 2024 has been brought on record. This Court is of the view that the present writ petition suffers from gross suppression of material facts.
13. It is trite law that a person who approaches the Court with unclean hands cannot be given any equitable relief. A beneficial reference can be made to the case of 'Ramjas Foundation Vs. Union of India India' reported in 2010 (14) SCC 38.
38 Relevant extract is reproduced hereunder:
hereunder:-
"14.
14. The principle that a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every Court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have bearing on VANDANA 2025.02.25 13:00 Page 4 of 7 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-4862-2025 2025 (O&M) adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case. In Dalglish v. Jarvie 2 Mac. & G. 231, 238, Lord Langdale and Rolfe B. observed: "It is the duty of a party asking for an injunction to bring under the notice of the Court all facts material to the determination of his right to that injunction; and and it is no excuse for him to say that he was not aware of the importance of any fact which he has omitted to bring forward. In Castelli v. Cook (1849) 7 Hare, 89, 94 Wigram V.C. stated the rule in the following words: "A plaintiff applying ex parte comes under a contract with the Court that he will state the whole case fully and fairly to the Court. If he fails to do that, and the Court finds, when other party applies to dissolve the injunction, that any material fact has been suppressed or not property brought br forward, the plaintiff is told the Court will not decide on the merits, and that, as he has broken faith with the Court, the injunction must go." In Republic of Peru v. Dreyfus Brothers & Company 55 L.T. 802, 803, Kay J. held as under:
"I have always maintained, and I think it most important to maintain most strictly, the rule that, in ex parte applications to this Court, the utmost good faith must be observed. If there is an important misstatement, speaking for myself, I have never hesitated, and never never shall hesitate until the rule is altered, to discharge the order at once, so as to impress upon all persons who are suitors in this Court the importance of dealing in good faith in the Court when ex parte applications are made."
XXX XXX XXX XXX
15. The
he above noted rules have been applied by this Court in large number of cases for declining relief to a party whose conduct is blameworthy and who has not approached the Court with clean hands - Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558, Welcome Hotel v. State of A.P. (1983) (1983) 4 SCC 575, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Government of Karnataka (1991) 1991) 3 SCC 261, S. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1994) 1 SCC 1, A.V. Papayya Sastry v.
Government of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221, Prestige Lights Limited v. SBI VANDANA 2025.02.25 13:00 Page 5 of 7 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-4862-2025 2025 (O&M) (2007) 2007) 8 SCC 449, Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India (2008) 2 SCC 326, K.D. Sharma v. SAIL (2008) (2008) 12 SCC 481, G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel (2009) 3 SCC 141 Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114.
114 In the last mentioned judgment, the Court lamented on the increase in the number of cases in which the parties have tried to misuse the process of Court by making false and/or misleading statements or by suppressing the relevant facts or by trying to mislead the Court in passing order in their favour and observed:
"For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahimsa" (non (non-violence).
Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post 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, misrepresentati 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 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 fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final." (emphasis supplied)
14. A writ being discretionary remedy cannot be granted to litigants who approach the Court with mala fide intention. On one hand, the VANDANA 2025.02.25 13:00 Page 6 of 7 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-4862-2025 2025 (O&M) officials of the petitioner-bank petitioner bank are trying to save themselves from th the consequences of the Contempt Petition Petition being COCP No.4897 No.4897-2024 filed by respondent No.3 by relying on the letter dated October 14, 2024 seeking implementation of the order dated September 5, 202 2024 and on the other hand, they have filed the present writ petition praying for quashing of the order dated September 5, 2024 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Annexure P-5)
5).
15. The petitioner-bank petitioner has indulged in dishonest practice and has approached the Court with mala fide intent and the same is not at all appreciated by this Court. Allowing such a writ petition would be akin to giving a premium to the dishonest intent of a litigant.
16. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.10,000/-
Rs.10,000/ to be paid to the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
17. Connected applications if any, are accordingly disposed of.
(LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE February 20,, 2025 202 Vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No VANDANA 2025.02.25 13:00 Page 7 of 7 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document