Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 723
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Nur Mohal Begum W/o Late Abdul Baten Sk. – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 7232 of 2021
Decided On : 08-05-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S.C. Biswas.
For the Respondents: N. Upadhyay, C. Baruah.
IMPORTANT POINT
Litigants must approach the court with clean hands, make full and fair disclosure of all material facts, and refrain from abusing the process of the court. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of the petition and imposition of costs.
Headnote:
ABUSE OF PROCESS - Family Pension - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - 12 SCC 481, 2 SCC 398
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, claiming to be the legally married wife of a deceased government employee, filed a writ petition seeking family pension. However, it was revealed that she had already received a substantial amount through a court order in a related case, and the facts of the previous proceedings were deliberately suppressed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner and her counsel had abused the process of the court by filing the writ petition without clean hands and bona fide. The court dismissed the writ petition and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 each on the petitioner and her counsel.
Issues: Abuse of process, deliberate suppression of material facts, lack of clean hands, and lack of bona fide in approaching the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and making full and fair disclosure of all material facts. It cited precedents to highlight the consequences of abusing the process of the court and the obligation to approach the court with clean hands.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and a cost of Rs. 25,000 was imposed on both the petitioner and her counsel.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
1. Heard Shri S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri N. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Shri C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General.
2. This is another glaring example of gross abuse of the process of the Court by means of this petition stated to have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. At the outset, this Court reminds itself that the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are a power of equity wherein the conduct of the parties are of paramount importance. It is unfortunate to observe that in this case, it is not only the conduct of the party but also the conduct of the counsel for the petitioner which are in serious doubt and lack bona-fide.
4. Bereft of details, the facts projected in this writ petition is that the husband of the petitioner Abdul Baten Sk. was a Khalasi (Grade-IV employee) in the establishment of the Irrigation Department posted at Mankachar. The husband had passed away on 17.07.2011 leaving behind the petitioner and 9 children. The petitioner claims to have applied for family pension on the strength of being the legally married wife of the deceased Government Employee. She also claims to be the nominee in the Service Book. However, as no action was taken on her claim, the present writ petition was filed in the year 2021.
5. This Court had issued notice on 03.01.2022 and pursuant to such notice, the respondent no. 3 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 19.05.2022. The disclosures made in the said affidavit-in-opposition and the annexure would make a startling revelation. A perusal of the said affidavit-in-opposition, more specifically, the averments made in paragraph 4 would disclose that the petitioner had filed a Succession Case before the learned District Judge, Dhubri in Misc. (S/C) Case No 52/2012 against one Nur Jahan Khatun, the first wife of the deceased which was disposed of vide judgment dated 13.12.2016. The said judgment was however challenged by the said Nur Jahan Khatun by filing an appeal in this High Court which was registered as FAO/10/2017. This Court had initially passed an order dated 19.04.2017 stayed the judgment of the leanred District Judge, Dhubri. On receipt of notice of the appeal, the present petitioner had appeared and had filed I.A. (C)/2966/2017 for modification of the interim order.
6. This Court had disposed of I.A. (C)/2966/2017 filed by the present petitioner vide order dated 13.08.2018 whereby the interim order dated 19.04.2017 was modified with a direction that 1/8th of the total amount be left aside and the rest be released to the applicant (writ petitioner herein).
7. The affidavit-in-opposition has stated that pursuant to the said order dated 13.08.2018 of this Court passed in the I.A. (C)/2966/2017, an amount of Rs. 4,45,649/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Six Hundred Forty Nine) has already been paid to the petitioner. A perusal of the copy of the order dated 13.08.2018 by this Court would show that the present petitioner was the applicant in the said I.A. and was represented by the same Counsel, Shri S.C. Biswas. The FAO also appears to be pending as on date.
8. The facts observed above and which has been brought to light by way of an affidavit were not only very much within the knowledge of the petitioner, what is surprising is that the facts were very much within the knowledge of the learned counsel also who was the same in the pending F.A.O. and the I.A. and the order was passed in the year 2018 whereas the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2021.
9. Apart from the fact that no parallel proceedings can be instituted on the same subject matter, what is more important is the act of deliberate and gross suppression of materials fact. This Court has noticed that even the principal contesting party in the appeal has not been made party respondent in the present writ petition. It ex-facie appear
