Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Learned advocate for the appellant argued that the learned trial Judge did not consider all these aspects, as placed before him by the appellant/writ petitioner and as such, learned Trial Judge was not at all justified in dismissing the writ petition. Learned advocate for the appellant thus, has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment, as passed by the learned trial Judge.

As against this, Mr. Milan Chandra Bhattacharjee, learned advocate for the respondent/company submitted that the appellant/writ petitioner did not approach the writ court with clean hands. According to him, the appellant/writ petitioner based his claim on a forged document which was annexed as Annexure P-7 which is at page 37 of the paper book in order to misguide the learned trial Judge. As such, he argued that since the writ court is basically a court of equity, the writ petitioner cannot be favoured with any equitable relief, solely on the ground that he did not approach the writ court with clean hands.

In order to overcome this legal position, as discussed above, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate for the respondent argued that even if the dismissal order is considered to be improper, then also no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner as he did not approach the court with clean hands and is guilty of practising fraud upon the court. In this respect he has relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1997 SC 1041 (Panchu Gopal Barua & Ors. vs. Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors.) and AIR 2000 SC 1165 (United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.). In support of his contention, Mr. Bhattcharjee argued that the writ petitioner practised fraud upon the court by annexing the Annexure P-7, which is at page 37, in order to impress upon the court that actually no discharge order was passed by the appropriate authority. Mr. Bhattacharjee argued that there was no such existence of this document, as filed by the writ petitioner in support of his case. According to him, it is a forged document prepared for the purpose of the writ application. In this respect, he has drawn our attention to the affidavit sworn by the then Chairman-man-Managing Director of the Calcutta Tramways Company, who is at present serving as the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, wherein it was clearly stated that no such document was issued by him in favour of the writ petitioner nor he signed in the said document, that is annexed as Annexure P-7 to the writ petition. There is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the statement of the then Chairman-man-Managing Director and it appears that the learned Trial Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the writ petitioner practised fraud upon the court by way of using a document which is not genuine.

That apart, it appears that the writ petitioner did not mention before the trial court that prior to his approaching the High Court, he submitted an application with the Conciliation Officer of the Government of West Bengal raising an industrial dispute, which is still pending. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, as this fact was not disclosed by the writ petitioner, so it must be held that he was guilty of suppression of material fact. As against this, learned advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner argued that in the writ application, filing of the petition before the Conciliation Officer was mentioned and it was stated therein that due to the long drawn procedure in that forum, the writ petitioner did not proceed with the same. Although, such fact was stated in the writ petition, but it appears from the document R-1 which is at page 86 of the paper book that it was mentioned therein that the said conciliation proceeding was not yet disposed of, as claimed by the writ petitioner. In the absence of any such document, it must be presumed that the said proceeding is still pending before the appropriate authority. It was the duty of the writ petitioner/appellant to apprise the court about the said conciliation proceeding so that the trial Court could come to a definite conclusion in that respect. Under such circumstances, I have got no hesitation to hold that the writ petitioner/appellant is guilty of suppression of material fact before the learned trial Court. It is the settled position that the Writ Court is a court of equity and any person, being aggrieved by any order/action, can approach such court for equitable relief. As such, there cannot be any two opinions that the person who approaches the Writ Court praying for equitable relief, must come with clean hands. But so far as this matter is concerned, there is reason to believe that the writ petitioner/appellant did not approach the Writ Court, with clean hands, as indicated above. Under such circumstances, I have got no hesitation to hold that even if the order of discharge/dismissal appears to be illegal, that cannot be a reason for giving relief to the writ petitioner/appellant as he did not approach the court with clean hands and is guilty of practising fraud upon the Court.

In my discussion above, I have already pointed out that there is reason to believe that the appellant/writ petitioner practised fraud upon the Court by way of producing a forged document. In the decision reported in AIR 2000 SC pg. 1165 (supra) the Supreme Court was of the opinion that in case it is found that an order has been procured by a party by practising fraud upon the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, then it is always desirable that the Writ Court should immediately recall such order. In other words the Supreme Court clearly deprecated this practice of obtaining order from the Writ Court by way of practising fraud. So far as this hearing is concerned, it has already been pointed out that the writ petitioner/appellant is guilty of practising fraud by producing a document which is at page 37 of the paper book before the Writ court claiming the same to be a genuine one although from the affidavit of the person concerned i.e. the Managing Director of the company there cannot be any doubt that no such document was issued on behalf of such officer. This action on the part of the appellant/writ petitioner undoubtedly leads us in coming to the conclusion that the writ petitioner did not approach the Writ Court with clean hands. At the very outset we have mentioned that even if a person has got good a case in support of his contention, then also such person cannot be rewarded with any relief by the Writ Court if it is found that said person was guilty of making an attempt to obtain an order from the court by way of practising fraud and did not approach the said court with clean hands. So far as the present case is concerned, I have got no hesitation to hold that the appellant/writ petitioner is guilty of practising fraud upon the Court and also he did not approach the Court with clean hands. That apart, the appellant approached the Court with unusual delay and there is no reasonable/believable explanation for that. Under such circumstances, in my considered opinion, the appellant/writ petitioner is not entitled to get any relief, as prayed for although, there may be defect in the order passed by the authority in respect of the dismissal of the writ petitioner. It appears that the learned Trial Judge considered all these aspects in dismissing the writ application and I find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the learned Trial Judge in view of the discussion, as made above.