Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Before the Division Bench which was hearing L.P.A. No. 1107 of 1990, a prayer for grant of stay was made but no order was passed in favour of the appellants by the High Court. Thereafter, 149 person jointly filed C.W.P. No. 15831 of 1993. Petitioners No. 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of this writ petition were also petitioners in that case. On 21.11.1993, a Division Bench admitted the writ petition to Full Bench and directed that it be heard along with CWP No. 4199 of 1991 and at the same time, granted stay order in favour of the petitioners. Respondent No. 4 herein filed an application for being impleaded as a party in CWP No. 15831 of 1993 and also filed an application for vacation of the stay order. The Division Bench accepted the prayer made by respondent No. 4 and ordered his impleadment as a respondent to CWP No. 15831 of 1993. The said Division Bench also vacated the stay order on 17.2.1994. Thereafter, the writ petitioners filed Special Leave Petition No. 12360 of 1994 before the Apex Court, which came to be dismissed on 16.8.1994.

8. At the commencement of hearing of the writ petition, Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate appearing for respondents 4 to 7 submitted that the petitioners should not be heard on the merits of the case because they are guilty of deliberately not placing full and correct facts before the Court. Shri Sarin pointed out that the petitioners deliberately withheld the fact from the Court that in LPA No. 1107 of 1990 no stay order was passed by the High Court and also that in CWP No. 15831 of 1993 the stay order was vacated on 17.2.1994 on the ground of concealment of facts. Learned counsel also pointed out that although the petitioners have made reference to CWP No. 15883 of 1993, they have not brought to the notice of the Court that the said writ petition was decided by the High Court with a direction to the respondents to implement the notification dated 30.3.1988. Shri Sarin submitted that by not bringing full facts to the notice of the Court the petitioners have successfully misled the Court in granting interim stay order on the same subject matter in which the stay order was vacated on 17.2.1994 and even the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16.8.1994 and, therefore, the petitioners have disentitled themselves from hearing of the case on its merits.

9. Shri R.L.Batta, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, argued that the petitioners have made reference to the entire previous litigation and non-mentioning of factum of vacation of stay order on 17.2.1994 or non-mentioning of the fact that CWP No. 15883 of 1993 was decided by the High Court with a direction to the Government to implement the notification dated 30.3.1988 are inconsequential and do not have any bearing on the merits of the case. Shri Batta contended that issue relating to the validity of Section 8 of the Act was not involved in other cases and, therefore, the mere fact that the stay order was vacated on 17.2.1994 could not have resulted in rejection of the prayer for stay made by the petitioners in this case. Learned counsel further argued that all these objections must be deemed to have been considered and rejected when the Division Bench declined to vacate the stay order on 22.11.1994.

Writ Petition disposed of as above."

13. In my opinion, the factum of vacation of the stay order by the Division Bench in CWP No. 15831 of 1993 vide order dated 17.2.1994 was a very relevant fact in the context of the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of an interim order in this petition. Persons who are petitioners 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30 and 31 were also petitioners in CWP No. 15831 of 1993 and they fully knew that stay order passed in their favour had been vacated by the Division Bench on 17.2.1994. They also knew that if this fact was mentioned in the writ petition, the Court would not pass an ex parte interim order in their favour. Therefore, With the object of misleading the Court to pass an interim order in their favour, the petitioners withheld this important fact from the notice of the Court. Similarly, the fact that on 8.4.1994 a Division Bench had directed the Government to give effect to the notification dated 30.3.1988 was within the knowledge of 149 petitioners because they were added as respondents in that writ petition on an application moved by them if contents of order dated 8.4.1994 had been made known to the Bench which considered this writ petition at the motion stage, the Bench would not have issued an order staying the operation of the notification dated 30.3.1988. It is impossible to think that a Bench of this Court would have stayed the operation of the same very notification regarding which interim stay was vacated vide order dated 17.2.1994 and which was directed to be implemented by another order of this Court dated 8.4.1994.