Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 1929
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANJAY KAROL, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, JJ.
Vikesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others - Respondents
CWP No. 356 of 2016
Decided on : 29-11-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ravinder Singh Jaswal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. Anup Rattan, Mr. Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate
The main legal point established is the requirement for litigants to approach the court with clean hands and disclose all material facts, as well as the equitable jurisdiction of the court in dismissing petitions based on misrepresentation and abuse of court process.
Headnote:
Fair Price Shop - Allotment Dispute - [Public Distribution Committee Act, Section 4(1)(a); Contempt of Court Act, Section 2(b)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Public Distribution Committee Act, particularly Section 4(1)(a) which outlines the procedure for evaluating applicants for fair price shop allotment. The court also emphasized the principles of clean hands and equitable jurisdiction, citing the Contempt of Court Act, Section 2(b) and various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. These legal provisions and interpretations influenced the court's decision to dismiss the petition and impose heavy costs on the petitioner for misleading the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a fair price shop allotment, claiming to have submitted all required documents. However, the respondent was allotted the shop as the petitioner's documents were found to be false.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had misled the court by making false statements and suppressing material facts, leading to the dismissal of the petition and imposition of heavy costs.
Issues: Misrepresentation of facts, suppression of material facts, abuse of court process, and fair price shop allotment dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and the equitable jurisdiction of the court, leading to the dismissal of the petition and imposition of heavy costs on the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with heavy costs assessed at Rs.25,000 to be paid to respondent No.2 within four weeks, failing which the respondent would be free to execute the order.
The brief facts as pleaded in the petition are that the respondent-department had invited applications for allotment of fair price shop for three wards of Gram Panchayat Dhagoli namely Gyari, Mangyari and Jhanjhvani. It is averred that the petitioner being fully eligible, applied for the fair price shop, Mangyari and alongwith the application submitted all the requisite documents for the grant of fair price shop i.e. 10th, +2 certificates, medical certificate and also BPL card/certificate. Whereas, the respondent No.4 in whose favour the fair price shop has now been allotted, had though submitted an application, but the same was without any supporting documents and it is on these basis that the petitioner has filed the instant petition claiming therein the following substantive reliefs:
“(i) That the impugned Annexure P-5 i.e. allotment of Fair Price Shop in favour of respondent No.4 may kindly be quashed and set-aside.
(ii) That the respondent department may further be directed to sanction the Fair Price Shop in the name of the petitioner being his eligibility for the same in accordance with law and after following procedure and permit him to open the Fair Price Shop.”
2. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed the reply wherein it was specifically averred that three applications uptil 9.10.2015 were received for the allotment of fair price shop in question and were accordingly placed before the Public Distribution Committee in the meeting held on 23.11.2015. It was found that the petitioner had not enclosed any document with the application so as to enable the Committee to ascertain his merit and left with no option the Committee evaluated the two other applicants and thereafter recommended the name of respondent No.4, who was the first in merit.
3. When the matter came up before this Court on 28.11.2016, learned counsel for the petitioner was specifically confronted with the reply of the respondents wherein it had been alleged that the petitioner had not annexed any documents alongwith his application and also to seek instructions in this regard. However, he would insist and maintain that he had full instructions to inform this Court that the petitioner in fact had submitted all the documents as mentioned in para-4 of the petition i.e. 10th, +2 certificates, Medical Certificate and BPL card alongwith his application. Not only this, he would further maintain that it was the respondent No.4, who though has been allotted the shop had in fact not submitted any documents with his application.
4. We accordingly adjourned the case for 29.11.2016 and the respondents were directed to make available the records.
5. Today, the respondents have produced the records and we have gone through the same and find that though the application of the petitioner is available therein, but there is no document accompanying the same. Whereas, on the other hand, the application of respondent No.4 is also available on record and is accompanied by the following documents :
(i) Matriculation Certificate;
(ii) Unemployment Certificate;
(iii) BPL certificate; and
(iv) Permanent Resident Certificate.
6. Thus, on the basis of the record, it is proved that the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition are false to his very knowledge.
7. It is settled law that one has to approach the Court with clean hands, clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power, writ Court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material facts or attempts to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the application on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case.
8. In order to sustain and maintain the sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law Courts, it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misr
