Karnataka High Court
Shidlaghatta And Chikkaballapura vs State Of Karnataka on 7 February, 2023
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
WP No. 25975 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 25975 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHIDLAGHATTA AND CHIKKABALLAPURA
TALUKS MAHILA SUPLEMENTARY
NUTRITION PRODUCTION CENTER
(KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT)
HANUMANTHAPURA GATE
DIBBURAHALLI ROAD,
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALALPURA DISTRICT - 562 102
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA RAO BHOUNSLE., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by PADMAVATHI
BK
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDAH
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
-2-
WP No. 25975 of 2022
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT
LEVE II, M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF
WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
SHANTHI BHAVAN
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SMT.B.SUKANYA BALIGA, CGC R4;
SMT.LAKSHMI IYENGAR, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M.JAGADEESH, SRI V.G.BHANUPRAKASH AND
SRI V.ARJUN SARATHY, ADVOCATES IN I.A.NO.1/23,
I.A.NO.2/23, I.A.NO.3/23 (FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANTS))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 22.08.2022 IN NO.
WDC 04 ICD 2020, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY
THE R2 AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 25975 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner - Shidlaghatta and Chickballapur Mahila Supplementary Nutrition Production Training Centre ('MSPTC' for short) is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
a) "a writ in the nature of certiorari or direction or order to QUASH the Government Order dated 22.08.2022 in No.WCD 04 ICD 2020, Bengaluru, vide Annexure - 'J' passed by the 2nd Respondent;
b) a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction or order directing the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to IMPLEMENT the Government Order dated 17.08.2022 in No.WCD 04 ICD 2020, Bengaluru Respondent vide Annexure - 'H' passed by the 2nd Respondent;
c) a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction or order, directing the 4th Respondent to MONITOR the ICDS Scheme in the manner for which the said scheme has been sponsored, in the State of Karnataka;
d) grant such other writ s or orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fir under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
What is sought to be quashed is a Government Order dated 22.08.2022 and what is consequentially sought is a mandamus directing implementation of a Government Order dated 17.08.2022.
-4- WP No. 25975 of 20222. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Manjunatha Rao Bhounsle appearing for petitioner, learned senior counsel Smt.Lakshmi Iyengar appearing for impleading applicants, Sri.B.V.Krishna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3/State and Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:
Several petitions were filed before this Court invoking the public interest jurisdiction in writ petition No.3522 of 2022 c/w W.P.Nos.11004 of 2020 & 15767 of 2021. The Division Bench of this Court in terms of its order dated 27.05.2022 while disposing the petitions passed the following order:
"FINDINGS
17. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
18. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel appearing in W.P.No.11004/2020 and W.P.No.15767/2021, the impugned orders dated 15.05.2021 and 20.05.2021, whereby the circular dated 02.07.2020 and Government order dated 05.05.2021 respectively are sought to be withdrawn are illegal, -5- WP No. 25975 of 2022 arbitrary and vitiated and the same deserve to be quashed for the following reasons:-
(i) The material on record discloses that as per the ICDS scheme as well as the Central Government Norms dated 24.02.2009 and 2017 Rules and directions issued by the Apex Court pertaining to implementation of the scheme, the State government issued an order dated 24.02.2018 which was stayed by this Court. A perusal of the circular dated 02.07.2020 and Government order dated 05.05.2021 as well as the technical committee report dated 19.08.2021, the feasibility for the MSPTCs to tie up with BIS licenced / certified women self help groups such as the petitioners has been recognised, acknowledged and recommended by the State Government bearing in mind the objectives of the scheme, Apex Court directions and the relevant norms / rules. It is therefore clear that the impugned orders dated 15.05.2021 and 20.05.2021 purporting to withdraw the circular dated 02.07.2020 and Government order dated 05.05.2021 are illegal, arbitrary and deserve to be quashed.
(ii) A perusal of the impugned orders dated 15.05.2021 and 20.05.2021 clearly indicates that the same are completely unreasoned, non-speaking, cryptic, laconic and arbitrary orders which have been passed unconditionally and unilaterally without assigning any reasons and without any application of mind, thereby being violative and contrary to the principles of natural justice and on this ground also, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.
(iii) A perusal of the circular dated 02.07.2020 and Government order dated 05.05.2021 indicates that the same were issued in conformity and pursuant to the National Food Security Act r/w SNP Rules, 2017 as well as the directions issued by the Apex Court regarding implementation of the ICDS scheme which is meant for pregnant women, children, lactating mothers etc., and consequently, withdrawal of the said circular and Government order by passing the impugned orders will substantially delay the implementation of the ICDS scheme in the State of Karnataka and as such, the impugned order deserve to be quashed.-6- WP No. 25975 of 2022
(iv) It is also relevant to state that taking into account larger public interest involved in speedy implementation of the ICDS scheme, of which, pregnant women, children, lactating mothers etc., are the beneficiaries, it was absolutely essential that the circular dated 02.07.2020 and order dated 05.05.2021 are implemented and given effect to at the earliest without any delay and under these circumstances, issuance of the impugned orders seeking to withdraw the said circular and order will cause great prejudice and hardship to the beneficiaries of the ICDS scheme and consequently, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed on this ground also.
(v) Insofar as the defence of the State Government that the impugned orders were passed since the circular dated 02.07.2020 and the Government order dated 05.05.2021 were contrary to the directions issued by the Apex Court and failure on the part of the women self help groups to comply with the requirements of the said circular and order is concerned, it is significant to note that the said circular dated 02.07.2020 and Government order dated 05.05.2021 indicate that all relevant and material facts including the directions of the Apex Court, the objectives sought to be achieved by the ICDS scheme, earlier government orders, notifications, rules, norms etc., have been considered and taken into account while issuing the said circular and order and consequently, the said contention of the respondents -
State is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected.
(vi) Insofar as the contention of the respondents - State that the women self help groups have not complied with the terms and conditions of the circular dated 02.07.2020 and Government order dated 05.05.2021 is concerned, the material on record discloses that as directed by this Court, the petitioners have filed affidavits along with documents which indicate that all the terms and conditions prescribed in the said circular and order have been fulfilled and complied with by the petitioners and as such, the said contention urged by the respondents - State is also liable to be rejected.
(vii) The respondents have completely failed to substantiate that the circular dated 02.07.2020 and -7- WP No. 25975 of 2022 Government order dated 05.05.2021 were contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court.
(viii) Insofar as the contention advanced by the respondents - State that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act enables them to withdraw the circular dated 02.07.2020 and order dated 05.05.2021, having regard to the peculiar and special facts and circumstances of the instant case including the aims and objects of the ICDS scheme, directions issued by the Apex Court and other proceedings, orders etc., prior to issuance of the same, respondents were not entitled to unilaterally and unconditionally issue the impugned orders under Section 21, which does not confer unfettered or unbridled powers on the State Government to withdraw its earlier order dated 05.05.2021, that too within a period of fifteen days and as such, even this contention of the respondents is liable to be rejected. It is well settled that exercise of power under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is circumscribed, limited and restricted by the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances including the instant circular / order sought to be withdrawn and in the facts of the case on hand, particularly having regard to the ICDS scheme which is beneficial in nature, effective and speedy implementation of the scheme was absolutely essential and consequently, the impugned orders are vitiated on this ground also.
(ix) The material on record also reveals that the already miserable situation and condition of the beneficiaries of the ICDS scheme had substantially and considerably deteriorated and worsened on account of the Covid-19 pandemic and on this charge also, the respondents were not justified in passing the impugned orders, which deserve to be quashed on this ground also.
(x) It is also significant to state that one M/s.Shri. Sharadamba Foods had preferred W.P.No.580/2020 seeking quashing of the circular dated 02.07.2020 and for other reliefs. The said petition having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 24.08.2020, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A.No.580/2020 which was also dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 21.01.2021. It is therefore clear that the legality, validity and correctness of the said circular dated 02.07.2020 has been upheld by -8- WP No. 25975 of 2022 this Court and the same has attained finality and become conclusive and consequently, this circumstance also indicates that the impugned order dated 15.05.2021 seeking to withdraw the said circular dated 02.07.2020 is illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed.
(xi) As stated supra, W.P.No.3522/2022 is a PIL which was preferred on 14.02.2022 seeking several directions for implementation of the ICDS Scheme. In this context, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned orders dated 15.05.2021 and 20.05.2021 which proceed on the basis that some of the women self help groups do not meet the eligibility criteria or the conditions in the circular dated 02.07.2020 or order dated 05.05.2021 would not be a ground to repeal the entire frame work and consequently, the impugned orders would not only be disproportionate but also irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the same deserves to be quashed on this ground also.
(xii) So also, learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his contention that the power of the State Government under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is circumscribed, restricted and limited by the constitutional provisions, in particular, Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; in this context, it is significant to note that consequent upon issuance of the impugned orders dated 15.05.2021 and 20.05.2021, the circular dated 02.07.2020 and order dated 05.05.2021 are sought to be withdrawn, thereby denying more than 50 lakhs beneficiaries in Karnataka, the right to nutritious food, particularly to pregnant women, lactating mothers and children whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated and on this score also, the impugned orders being arbitrary and capricious under Article 14 of the Constitution of India deserve to be quashed in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Shayara Bano vs. Union of India1 and Dipika Jagatram Sahani vs. Union of India & others2.
1(2017) 9 SCC 1 2 W.P.(Civil) 1039 / 2020 (PIL) -9- WP No. 25975 of 2022
(xiii) It is needless to state that upon quashment of the impugned orders dated 15.05.2021 and 20.05.2021, the earlier circular dated 02.07.2020 and order dated 05.05.2021 which have been referred to in the technical committee report dated 19.08.2021 would stand revived and the same would necessarily have to be implemented and given effect to by the State Government. Under these circumstances, though several directions are sought for by the petitioner in this petition, in view of the quashment of the impugned orders dated 15.05.2021 and 20.05.2021, this petition deserves to be allowed directing the respondents - State to give effect to and implement the circular dated 02.07.2020 and order dated 05.05.2021 in the light of the report of the technical committee dated 19.08.2021 by taking necessary steps forthwith in this regard immediately without any further delay.
19. In the result, we pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) All the writ petitions are hereby allowed;
(ii) The impugned Government orders dated 15.05.2021 and 20.05.2021 passed by the respondents - State are hereby quashed.
(iii) The respondents - State are directed to forthwith implement and give effect to the circular dated 02.07.2020 and Government order dated 05.05.2021 issued and passed by the State Government immediately without any further delay.
(iv) The State Government is also directed to take necessary steps to forthwith implement and give effect to the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme (ICDS Scheme) immediately without any further delay, bearing in mind the Central Government Norms dated 24.02.2009 and Rules dated 06.10.2017 and in the light of the report of the technical committee dated 19.08.2021 as well as all other applicable
- 10 -
WP No. 25975 of 2022Government Rules, Regulations, Norms, Orders, Circulars etc., in this regard.
(v) It is directed that the supply of food products, without following specifications and standards as per Revised Nutrition and Feeding Norms shall be suspended with immediate effect and supply of quality nutrition as per Government order dated 05.05.2021 and circular dated 02.07.2020 shall be ensured by the respondents, by executing the agreements as specified in the Government order dated 05.05.2021.
(vi) In order to ensure uninterrupted quality supply of the menu of food items, the respondents are directed that, if the parties of the contract (Agreements) as per Government order 05.05.2021 fail to perform their obligation, the final products as specified in the contract (Agreements) shall be procured at a competitive rate from any eligible entities as specified vide circular dated 02.07.2020 and supply the same to Anganawadi Centres in the interest of the beneficiaries.
(vii) The State Government is directed to submit a compliance report to this Court within a period of three months from today.
(viii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.3522/2022 (PIL) to seek revival of the said petition, if the occasion so arises."
(Emphasis supplied) After disposal of the writ petitions, a review petition is preferred by the petitioners in Review Petition No.550 of 2022 seeking review of the afore-quoted order. The Division Bench by a detailed order, again dismisses the Review Petition.
Another Review Petition is preferred in Review Petition No.575
- 11 -
WP No. 25975 of 2022of 2022, which also comes to be dismissed. All of those were carried to the Apex Court in SLP No.18930 of 2022. The Apex Court rejects the Special Leave Petition by the following order:
"UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Permission to file Special Leave Petitions is granted.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) and considering the earlier judgment and order passed this Court and having considered and gone through the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order(s), no case for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is made out. The Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
(Emphasis supplied) By the date the SLP comes to be dismissed, the State Government had issued a Government order on 17.08.2022 in implementation of the order passed by the Division Bench (supra). Owning to certain discrepancy in the said order, a second Government Order is issued on 22.08.2022 quoting the judgment of the Division Bench. The petitioner is before this
- 12 -
WP No. 25975 of 2022Court calling in question the said Government Order issued on 22.08.2022.
4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner would vehemently contend that a particular clause of the circular dated 02.07.2020 is violated and therefore, it has a right to prefer the present writ petition as it runs counter to the order passed by the Division Bench in writ petition No.3522 of 2022 and connected cases. Owing to the submissions so made, this Court had granted an interim order of stay, which reads as follows:
"Learned AGA seeks two weeks' time to file statement of objections.
Two weeks' time is granted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents are insisting an execution of Memorandum of Understanding, contrary to the earlier orders passed by this Court. Therefore, the parties shall maintain status- quo as on this day till the next date of hearing."
5. On the other hand, learned senior counsel Smt.Lakshmi Iyengar representing the impleading applicants would take this Court through the application seeking impleadment and the documents appended thereof to
- 13 -
WP No. 25975 of 2022demonstrate that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts and the orders passed by this Court, as there is no whisper in the writ petition about the orders passed in review petition by the very same learned counsel who has now filed the present petition. She would submit that without going into the merit of the matter, the petition has to be dismissed on such suppression.
6. Without prejudice to the said contention, the learned senior counsel would take this Court through the orders passed by the Division Bench which directs implementation of the circular dated 02.07.2020, in its form and sets a timeline for such implementation. She would submit that it is in terms of the direction so issued by the Court. The Government Order dated 22.08.2022 has been brought into effect, what is challenged is an order that is issued/notified pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench (supra). All the other counsel would toe the lines of the learned senior counsel.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel and other
- 14 -
WP No. 25975 of 2022respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated orders passed are a matter of record The judgment of the Division Bench dated 27.05.2022 is as quoted (supra). The Division Bench clearly directed at clause (xiii) that in view of quashment of the impugned orders dated 15.5.2021 and 20.05.2021, the earlier circular dated 02.07.2020 and order dated 05.05.2021 would get revived.
Further the Division Bench directs that the State is to give effect to and implement the circular dated 02.07.2020 and the order dated 05.05.2021. Against the said order, several of the petitioners preferred review petition in review petition No.550 of 2022. The Division Bench passes the following order:
".... .... ....
2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that its interest is affected by the directions issued in our aforesaid order, wherein this Court directed the respondents to implement the Government Circular dated 02.07.2020 and also Government Order dated 05.05.2021. It is submitted that the aforesaid directions issued by this Court is an error apparent on the face of the record and though the present review petitioner was not a party to the aforesaid proceedings / order, since its interest is affected by the directions issued by this Court directing the respondents to implement the Government
- 15 -
WP No. 25975 of 2022Circular dated 02.07.2020 as well as Government Order dated 05.05.2021, the review petitioner is before this Court by way of the present review petition.
3. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondents, who appeared for the writ petitioners in W.P.No.3522/2022 & connected matters, submit that aggrieved by the aforesaid Government Circular dated 02.07.2020, the review petitioner had already preferred W.P.No.8799/2020 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 24.08.2020 and the same was confirmed in an appeal in W.A.No.580/2020 dated 21.01.2021 by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. It is therefore submitted that there is no merit in the review petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
5. The review petitioner has produced at Annexure-G, copy of the order dated 24.08.2020 passed in W.P.No.8799/2020, whereby the aforesaid petition filed by the review petitioner seeking quashing of the aforesaid Government Circular dated 02.07.2020 was dismissed by this Court; at Annexure-H, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal in W.A.No.580/2020 vide order dated 21.01.2021, thereby confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The aforesaid orders passed by this Court rejecting the challenge to the Government Circular dated 02.07.2020 qua the review petitioner have attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the review petitioner who is not entitled to circumvent the same and seek to challenge the impugned order passed by this Court under the guise of the present review petition, which is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
6. It is also relevant to state that all aspects in relation to the legality, validity and correctness of
- 16 -
WP No. 25975 of 2022the Government Circular dated 02.07.2020 as well as Government Order dated 05.05.2021 have been considered and appreciated extensively by this Court in the impugned order, which does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, much less any error or mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court and on this ground also, having regard to the extremely limited / restricted scope of review petition as held by the Apex Court in several judgments including the case of Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat - Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this review petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the review petition is hereby dismissed. In view of dismissal of review petition, I.A.2/022 does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied) Another review petition in Review Petition No.575 of 2022 is preferred by another MSPTC to which the learned counsel for petitioner now representing, had represented. The review petition is rejected by the following order:
"Sri. Manjunath Rao Bhonsle, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.S.S.Mahendra, learned AGA for the respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 9.
2. The order dated 27.05.2022 passed in W.P.No.3522/2022 along with W.P.No.11004/2020 and W.P.No.15767/2021 neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmities nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of
- 17 -WP No. 25975 of 2022
this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the review petition.
3. In the result, the review petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied) This is tossed before the Apex Court in SLP No.18930 of 2022 and the order in SLP is quoted (supra). Except stating about the disposal of the judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioner does not whisper anything about the orders in the review petitions and those orders having attained finality before the Apex Court in rejecting the SLPs. It is not a dismissal of the SLP in limine, but by a reasoned order. Therefore, the orders have been affirmed by the Apex Court. The affirmation of the order leads to modification of the impugned Government Order which the petitioner now seeks to challenge without divulging anything about the review petition being preferred or the SLP getting rejected affirming the said orders.
9. In effect, the petitioner is now seeking an order at the hands of this Court which would run counter to what the Division Bench had directed and the Apex Court had affirmed.
- 18 -
WP No. 25975 of 2022Therefore, it is a case where the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court with soiled or unclean hands and belongs to the breed of litigants who would knock at the doors of this Court suppressing all material facts in order to secure an order, either interim or final.
10. Reference being made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DALIP SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P.3 in the circumstances becomes apposite. The Apex Court has held as follows:
"1. 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 3 (2010) 2 SCC 114
- 19 -
WP No. 25975 of 2022goals. 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.
3. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das [AIR 1963 SC 1558] this Court adverted to the aforesaid rule and revoked the leave granted to the appellant by making the following observations: (AIR p. 1558) "It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements made by the appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained special leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterises as misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme Court may come to the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked."
4. In Welcom Hotel v. State of A.P. [(1983) 4 SCC 575 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 872 : AIR 1983 SC 1015] the Court held that a party which has misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case.
5. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka [(1991) 3 SCC 261 : AIR 1991 SC 1726] the Court denied relief to the appellant who had concealed the fact that the award was not made by the Land Acquisition Officer within the time specified in Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act because of the stay
- 20 -
WP No. 25975 of 2022order passed by the High Court. While dismissing the special leave petition, the Court observed: (SCC p. 263, para 2) "2. ... Curiously enough, there is no reference in the special leave petitions to any of the stay orders and we came to know about these orders only when the respondents appeared in response to the notice and filed their counter-affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have a direct bearing on the question raised and the non-disclosure of the same certainly amounts to suppression of material facts. On this ground alone, the special leave petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the special leave petitions."
6. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v.
Jagannath[(1994) 1 SCC 1 : JT (1993) 6 SC 331] the Court held that where a preliminary decree was obtained by withholding an important document from the court, the party concerned deserves to be thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
7. In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI [(2007) 8 SCC 449] it was held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court is not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court referred to the judgment of Scrutton, L.J. in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 KB 486 (CA), and observed: (Prestige Lights Ltd. case [(2007) 8 SCC 449] , SCC p. 462, para 35) In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in
- 21 -
WP No. 25975 of 2022mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.
8. In A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. [(2007) 4 SCC 221 : AIR 2007 SC 1546] the Court held that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on any party. It confers discretion on this Court to grant leave to appeal in appropriate cases. In other words, the Constitution has not made the Supreme Court a regular court of appeal or a court of error. This Court only intervenes where justice, equity and good conscience require such intervention.
9. In Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India [(2008) 2 SCC 326] the Court held that while exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the facts and circumstances of the case should be seen in their entirety to find out if there is miscarriage of justice. If the appellant has not come forward with clean hands, has not candidly disclosed all the facts that he is aware of and he intends to delay the proceedings, then the Court will non-suit him on the ground of contumacious conduct.
10. In K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [(2008) 12 SCC 481] the Court held that 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 and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without
- 22 -
WP No. 25975 of 2022concealing 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. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel [(2009) 3 SCC 141]."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court, in the aforementioned judgment, has dealt with every facet and circumstance of a litigant approaching the Court with unclean hands and how the approach of the Courts should be to curb such conduct of the litigants. On the bedrock of the aforementioned circumstances narrated in the judgment of the Apex Court, if the instant petition is noticed, it becomes unmistakably clear that the conduct of petitioner disentitles him for any relief from the hands of the Court.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, not only the petition deserves to be rejected, but rejected with exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of the coy of this order and file a compliance report before this Court in that regard.
Ordered accordingly.
- 23 -
WP No. 25975 of 2022In view of the dismissal of the petition, all pending applications are unnecessary to be considered and are accordingly, rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 100