Mohd. Usman vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 April, 1984
The propositions laid down by their Lordships of the Bombay High Court in S. H. M. Transport Co.'s case are not in dispute. The Bombay High Court considered that by no process of thinking or interpretation, it could be said that there is any indication in the orders of any authorities that the order of the Additional District Magistrate was ever set aside or even put in suspense. In that case, the order of the Additional District Magistrate directing reinstatement and payment of back wages on 4-8-1960 has never been set aside. The petitioner has also not made any reference to the second order of interim remand passed by the State Industrial Court on 14-11-1961. In such circumstances, their Lordships held that it is 'not open to petitioner under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution to pick and choose his own facts or to determine in advance what is relevant and material, omit to mention all material facts and proceedings and orders and then claim that he has acted bona fide even though he has made untrue statements, omitted to inform the Court of all the proceedings and the orders passed at different stages in the proceedings up to date and claim indulgence. In that case, there was an allegation of making untrue statement in the Writ Petition. In the, facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view, that the authority cited by Mr. A. K. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents does not apply in the instant case as there is no allegation that the petitioner has made untrue statements.