Back
1998 Supreme(Raj) 683
Rajasthan High Court
Honble B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
Smt. Madhu Jajoo - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2905 of 1998
Decided On : October 13, 1998
M.S. Singhvi, for Petitioner Kailash Joshi, for Respondent State Vineet Kothari, for Respondent No.2
Headnote:Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 – Section 63 and Constitution of India – Article 226 and Civil Procedure Code – Section 141 and Order 23 – Petitioner applied permission to withdraw the writ filed and to file another – She has already filed a writ at Jaipur Bench without disclosing the fact that she has filed a writ at Jodhpur (Principal Seat) – She even did not disclose in her withdrawal petition that her writ at Jaipur Bench is pending – She has not come with clean hands, clean mind and with clean objective –She has some ulterior motive and has played fraud with the court – She is not permitted to withdraw her writ. (Paras 13 & 14)
``No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. (Para 10)
``The Court of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, must so act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and the Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith, as far as it lies within their power. Equity is always known to prevent the law from crafty evasion and subleties invented to evade law. (Para 7)
Every litigant, who approaches the Court, must come forward not only with clean hands but with clean mind, clean heart and with clean objective. (Para 6)
(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this application are that the petitioner, who is the Chair-person of Municipal Council, Bhilwara, had challenged the order of suspension passed by the State Government from the Chair-personship and Membership of the Municipal Council, Bhilwara on various grounds. The writ petition was admitted by this Court vide order dated dated 1.9.1998. However, this Court rejected the application for interim relief inspite of the fact that all possible arguments had been made on her behalf including the allegations of malafide agai- nst Shri Ramrich Pal Nuval, respondent No.2- presently the M.L.A. from Bhilwara Constituency and regarding the arbitrary exercise of power by the State Government. By a speaking and reasoned order, the prayer for grant of interim relief was rejected though the Court directed to list the matter for final hearing on 16.9.98.
(3). Petitioner preferred the present application for withdrawal of the instant writ petition on 17.9.98 on the ground that she had been advised to file a writ petition at Jaipur Bench of this Court challenging, inter alia, the validity of the provisions of Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as ``the Act) and,also, the same impugned order of suspension and, thus, she prayed that she may be permitted to withdraw the instant writ petition with permission to persue the writ petition already filed by her before the Jaipur Bench. As the application for withdrawal was not supported by an affidavit, this Court, vide order dated 8.10.98 directed the petitioner to file an affidavit in support of the application and,also, to disclose whether she had disclosed the factum of pendency of the instant writ petition before the main seat while filing the writ petition before the Jaipur Bench. Petitioner filed an affidavit on 9.10.98 before this Court stating that the factum of pendency of the writ petition had not been disclosed in the writ petition filed at Jaipur Bench and it was not so disclosed as the petitioner was under the bonafide impression that it was not necessary as the validity of the provisions of Section 63(4) of the Act has been challenged therein. The State Gover- nment has filed reply to the said writ petition and taken a serious objection regarding suppression of the material fact before the Jaipur Bench and that writ petition is still pending for hearing.
(4). Heard Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Vineet Kothari, learned counsel for res- pondent No. 2 Mr. Ramrich Pal Nuval, M.L.A.
(5). It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioners right to withdraw that writ petition is absolute and the Court cannot force a party to proceed with the case. The submission seems to be very innocuous and attractive but has no application in a case where petitioner prays for withdrawal with liberty to file a successive petition. In such a case the Court has to examine whether buy seeking such permission for withdrawal, petitioner is trying to defeat the right/interest which has accrued in favour of the respondents(s) or trying to over-reach the Court or his/her conduct tentamounts to abuse of process of the Court. The instant application is not for a mere withdrawal. The application has been made specifi- cally to permit the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to persue the remedy before the Jaipur Bench. Petitioner approached this Court and could not succeed to get the interim order. Any matter challenging the impugned order or validity of a provision of any statute, can be filed before the Principal Seat of this Court. If petitioner wanted to challenge the validity of a statutory provision, there
