Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 589
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Girish Chandra Gupta and Arindam Sinha, JJ.
Dhanrajgram Dhibar Samabay Samity Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Raj Kumartola Matshyajibi Samabay Samity Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
M.A.T. No. 1507, 1508 of 2015 With MAT No. 1568, 1569 of 2013 With CAN No. 9780, 9782 of 2015 with CAN No. 10452, 10451 of 2013
Decided On : 29-11-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Milan Chandra Bhattacharya, Mr. Yasin Ali, Mr. Dipankar Mondal
For the Respondents: Mr. Arunva Ghosh, Mr. Abhhijit Kumar Chattopadhyay, Mr. Suvendu Bhattacharjee
For the State : Mr. Jaharlal Dey, Mr. Shamim ul Bari
A person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
Headnote:
JALKAR SETTLEMENT - LEASE RENTAL - PAYMENT - DEFAULT - CANCELLATION OF LEASE - RESETTLMENT - WRIT PETITION - MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS - ORDER OBTAINED BY FRAUD - CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS - VALIDITY OF ORDERS - RESTORATION OF STATUS QUO ANTE. The writ petitioner, who was the highest bidder for the settlement of Jalkar, paid only 25% of the offered price on the date of opening of the tender. The balance 75% was payable by December 15, 2011. The petitioner failed to pay the balance amount and the lease was cancelled and resettled in favor of the appellant, who was the second highest bidder. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the lease and obtained an order directing the state authorities to determine the outstanding rental payable by the petitioner and allowing the petitioner to pay the sum so determined in three installments. The order was obtained by the petitioner on the basis of misrepresentation of facts and by misleading the Court. The petitioner had untruly alleged that the balance sum of Rs.8,62,500/- was payable on account of rent for the entire period of 7 years.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was the highest bidder for the settlement of Jalkar and paid 25% of the offered price on the date of opening of the tender. The balance 75% was payable by December 15, 2011. The petitioner failed to pay the balance amount and the lease was cancelled and resettled in favor of the appellant, who was the second highest bidder. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the lease and obtained an order directing the state authorities to determine the outstanding rental payable by the petitioner and allowing the petitioner to pay the sum so determined in three installments. The order was obtained by the petitioner on the basis of misrepresentation of facts and by misleading the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The order dated 12th August, 2013 was obtained by the writ petitioner on the basis of misrepresentation of fact and by misleading the Court. The order dated 12th August, 2013 is, as such non-est. When the order dated 12th August, 2013 is bad the question of any violation thereof does not arise. The order dated 4th September, 2015 is also bad because the order authorized dispossession of the appellant without even hearing him and that too in an application to which the appellant was not a party.
Issues: 1. Whether the order dated 12th August, 2013 was obtained by the petitioner on the basis of misrepresentation of facts and by misleading the Court? 2. Whether the order dated 4th September, 2015 was passed without hearing the appellant and in an application to which the appellant was not a party?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant of imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. 2. A person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
Final Decision: All the appeals are allowed. Both the order dated 12th August, 2013 and 4th September, 2015 are set aside. All steps taken pursuant to the orders dated 12th August, 2013 and 4th September, 2015 should, therefore be reversed and status quo ante be restored.
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.
1. By a notice dated December 15, 2010 the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Manickchawk (BLLRO) invited tenders for settlement of Jalkar in respect of Lakshmi Kol Bishanpur Jalkar (Bishanpur Portion 100% Manickchawk Portion) on the terms and conditions contained therein.
2. Clause - 9 of the aforesaid notice provided, inter alia as follows:–
“1/4th of the offered price has to be paid immediately upon acceptance of the tender on the day of opening of the tender itself i.e. January 4, 2011. In default the tender shall stand cancelled and the money deposited by the tenderer whose tender may have been accepted shall stand forfeited and the fishery shall be resettled. The tenderer shall be liable to pay the balance within 15th December…….”
3. The tender was duly opened and the writ petitioner Raj Kumartola Matshyajibi Samabay Samity Ltd. was the highest bidder. From a receipt dated January 4, 2011 it appears that 25% of the lease rental amounting to a sum of Rs.2,87,500/- was deposited by the writ petitioner with the BLLRO. Possession of the fishery was made over to the petitioner on January 11, 2011 for a period of seven years purportedly commencing from 1st day of Baisakh 1417 BS to 31st Chaitra, 1423 BS subject to approval by the higher authority.
4. It may be pointed out that the State authority were under a mistaken belief that the lease was to commence from the 1st Baisakh 1417 BS. On the day when the notice inviting tender was issued it was already the month of Agrahayan 1417 BS. Therefore, the lease could not have commenced on the 1st Baisakh. It was, as such intended to commence on the 1st day Baisakh 1418 BS for a period of seven years. The rates offered by the tenderers as far as material for our purpose are as follows:–
“Name of the participants Economic rent Offered amount of FCS Limited for lease rent for 1417 BS
1.
Raj Kumar Tola MSS Ltd.
3,50,500/-
11,51,000
(Writ petitioner)
2.
Dhanrajgram DSS Ltd.
8,10,001”
-
(Appellant)
5. The writ petitioner paid 25% of the aforesaid sum of Rs.11,51,000/- on account of rental. The balance 75% was payable by December 15, 2011.
6. The writ petitioner purported to contend that the sum of Rs. 11,51,500/- was a rental for the entire period of seven years as would appear from the following averments made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition being WP No.14833(W) of 2011.
“The said respondent no.7 verbally told your petitioner no.2 that Rs.11,51,500/- is not the lease rent for the period of seven years, it is for one year and accordingly threatens the petitioners that if the petitioner no.2 does not pay the said amount demanded beyond the balance lease amount of Rs.8,62,500/-, the said Jalkar would be settled in favour of others……..”
7. On the aforesaid basis the writ petition no. W.P.14833 (W) of 2011 was filed praying for following reliefs.
“(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, their men, agents and each one of them to allow the petitioners to carry on their pisciculture in their Jalkar namely “Lakshmikol Bishanpur Jalkar (Bishanpur Kol, portion 100% Manickchak portion)” for the period seven years from the date of handing over possession i.e. from 11th January, 2011 to December 2017 by accepting the balance lease rent of Rs.8,62,500/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Sixty-Two Thousand Five Hundred) during the lease period.
(b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, their men, agents and each one of them to forbear from demanding any amount in excess of the balance lease rent of Rs.8,62,500/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Sixty-Two Thousand Five Hundred) during the lese period of seven years and further forbear those respondents from disturbing and/or interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners and their men from rearing and catching fishes in the said Jalkar during
