Sarda Energy And Minerals Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 January, 2011
30. Mr. Patwalia took strong exception to the conduct of Respondent No. 2
in the present case. According to him, not only the statements made by
learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 before this Court at the hearing of the
present writ petition on 24th April 2008 were false, but statements in its
affidavit by way of a reply to the application of Respondent No. 3 for
vacation of stay were also false. As regards the annexures to the said reply
affidavit of Respondent No. 2, Mr. Patwalia submitted that those documents
were obtained by way of an application under the Right to Information Act,
2005 („RTI Act‟) by some Advocate after hearing of the writ petition in this
Court on 24th August 2008. He, accordingly, alleged that Respondent No. 2
was acting malafide and was in connivance with the Petitioner to somehow
deprive Respondent No. 3 of its ML. Relying on the decisions in
Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. Chairman, Guruvayoor
Devaswom Managing Committee (1996) 7 SCC 505, M.C. Mehta v. Union
of India (2004) 12 SCC 118, Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto
(2010) 9 SCC 655, Supdt. of Taxes, Tezpur v. Bormahajan Tea Co (1978)
1 SCC 513 and Mamleshwar Prasad v. Kanhaiya Lal (1975) 2 SCC 232 he
submitted that Respondent No.2 cannot be permitted to "play fast and loose"