2000 Supreme(Raj) 1357
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
R.R.Yadav, J.
Babulal Deepak - Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. - Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3585 of 2000.
Decided On : 9-08-2000
For the Petitioner:Mrs. Naina Saraf, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. M. Rafiq, Addl. Advocate General
For the Respondent: Miss Sumitra Goyal, G.A.
Material concealment or misleading the court by a petitioner or their counsel disentitles them to equitable extraordinary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
Misleading the Court - Writ Petition - Article 226 of the Constitution - 2000(3) RLR 661
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition without disclosing the pendency of an earlier writ petition on the same matter. The court allowed the writ petition at admission stage but later found out about the concealment of facts by the petitioner's counsel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's counsel had misled the court by not disclosing the pendency of an earlier writ petition, and the petitioner was not entitled to equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: Concealment of facts by the petitioner's counsel, entitlement to equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a petitioner is found guilty of material concealment or misleading the court, they are not entitled to equitable extraordinary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of misleading the court, and the petitioner was ordered to pay special costs of Rs. 5,000 to the Legal Aid Committee, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur.
JUDGMENT
1. - I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. Naina Saraf and Mr. Mohd. Rafiq, Additional Advocate General as well as Miss Sumitra Goyal, Government Advocate.
2. Perused the averments made in the instant writ petition and also the averments made in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99.
3. From the perusal of the aforesaid writ petitions, it is revealed that the D.B. Writ Petition was presented in the office of registry on 3.12.99 whereas during the pendency of the aforesaid D.B. Writ Petition No. 6364/99, the present petition was filed on 4.8.2000 which was posted for admission on 7.8.2000.
4. When the aforesaid writ petition was posted for admission, a mention was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that as the petitioner intends to file nomination for membership of Municipal Board, Deoli, hence, his case may be taken up treating it to be an urgent. At the time of mention, it was pointed out that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by composite judgment rendered by me in case of Nathu Lal Jangid vs. State of Rajasthan and others (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2965/2000) , Vimal Chand Patni vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4631/98) and Pradeep Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 2348/2000), decided on 31st July, 2000 [Reported in 2000(3) RLR 661 . As next date i.e. 8.8.2000 was last date for filing nominations and the controversy involved in the writ petition was mentioned by the counsel concluded by my judgment mentioned hereinabove, the request for urgent hearing was allowed.
5. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner repeated her submission that controversy involved in the present petition is covered by my judgment dated 31.7.2000 without making mention that against the same order a D.B. Writ petition is subjudice. I believed the statement made at the bar and allowed the writ petition at admission stage whereby removal order of the petitioner from the membership of Board and debarring him to contest election for five years was set aside and case was remitted back to State Government with a direction to serve fresh chargesheet disclosing the evidence in support of each charge.
6. It is brought to my notice by learned Additional Advocate General Shri Mohd. Rafiq on the next date that order dated 7.8.2000 has been obtained by the petitioner's counsel misleading the court and concealing the fact about pendency of the earlier D.B. writ petition wherein the order impugned dated 29.10.99 in the present writ relating against removal of the petitioner and debarring him for contesting election for a period of five years was subjudice. It is also brought to my notice that Smt. Naina Saraf who is counsel in the present writ petition herself has filed earlier D.B. Writ petition No. 6364 of 1999 which was indisputably subjudice on 7.8.2000 on which date order was obtained from this court.
7. The aforesaid facts brought to my notice by learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Mohd. Rafiq shocked my judicial conscience and I directed the office to list the S.B. Civil Writ Petition along with D.B. Civil Writ Petition. This is how both the writ petitions are listed today before me.
8. A dose scrutiny of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 reveals that Smt. Naina Saraf has filed the aforesaid D.B. Civil Writ Petition on behalf of petitioner. It is further revealed from perusal of present S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3585/2000 that she herself has also filed the present S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3585/2000 during the pendency of aforesaid D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 on behalf of petitioner.
9. It is known to all of us that in order to avoid such situations, as has been arisen in this case, every advocate is required to give a certificate to the effect beneath the prayer of a writ petition that the petitioner has not filed any other writ petition impugning the order before this
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
