Back
2018 Supreme(All) 2486
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, ALOK MATHUR, JJ.
Al-Rahman Charitable Trust Thru. Trustee Shareef - Appellant
Versus
U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Home New Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
Misc. Bench No. 37049 of 2018
Decided On : 20-12-2018
For the Appellant : Mohammad Suhel Siddiqui, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
Litigants seeking equity must approach the court with clean hands, and the court may impose exemplary costs to curb abuse of the court process.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Namaz at Disputed Area - Article 25, Article 14 - [Article 25, Article 14]
Fact of the Case:
Al-Rahman Charitable Trust filed a writ petition to allow Muslims to offer Namaz in a disputed area, citing Article 25 and Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondents raised objections regarding the maintainability of the petition, alleging oblique motives and lack of authorization from the trust.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petition was ill-drafted and filed with oblique motives to gain popularity, suppressing material facts and lacking authorization from the trust. The court emphasized the need for litigants to approach the court with clean hands and observed that the petitioner and advocates failed to understand the meaning of the stay order by the Supreme Court.
Issues: Maintainability of the writ petition, authorization of the petitioner, understanding of the stay order by the Supreme Court
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that a litigant seeking equity must come with clean hands and that fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment of material facts vitiate solemn acts. It also highlighted the need to curb blatant abuse of the court process with exemplary costs.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,00,000, to be deposited for the welfare of poor children.
ORDER :
1. Notice on behalf of respondent no.1 has been accepted by Sri S.B.Pandey, Assistant Solicitor General whereas Sri Prakash Singh, Chief Standing Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties nos. 2 and 4.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Al-Rahman charitable Trust, who is a petitioner herein, is said to be a trust registered with the Registration Officer, Raebareli, has filed the instant writ petition through its Trustee Mr Shareef, chiefly with the prayer to command the opposite parties to allow the petitioner/Muslims to offer Namaz in the disputed area plot no.159, 160 and other surrounding plots knows as Ram Janam Bhoomi Barai Masjid disputed area situated at village Kot Ram Chandra, Ayodhya, Tehsil Faizabad Sadar, District Faizabad.
4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court by its verdict dated September 30, 2010 had allotted one-third of the disputed area to the Muslim community. As the Hindus were permitted to perform religious activities in the area, Muslim should also be permitted to offer Namaz there in view of Article 25 of the Constitution, which guaranteed freedom of religion, and Article 14 which ensured right to equality. Therefore, petitioners have sought for a direction to the State Government to allow members of the Muslim community to offer Namaz at the disputed land known as Ram Janmbhoomi-Babi Masjid situated at the place, referred to above.
5. Sri S.P. Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition and vehemently argued that the writ petition has been filed with oblique motives as the matter of the disputed site is still pending before the Supreme Court and there were orders of the Apex Court for maintaining status quo on the land of the said area, which is still operating.
6. It has also been contended that Al-Rahman Trust, which has filed the instant writ petition has been registered only a year ago and this petition has been filed just to gain cheap publicity and come in limelight.
7. Similar sort of arguments have been advanced by Sri S.B.Pandey, Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India. He also urged that there was no occasion for the petitioner to file such a writ petition when it is known to all that the instant sensitive matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has seized of the matter.
8. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner trust is registered in district Rae Bareli which is approximately 100 kilometres from Faizabad and it is highly unlikely that members of the trust would offer prayers at the disputed site.
9. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perusal record.
10. The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case was decided on September 30, 2010, a three-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
11. Against this judgment, many parties which appealed in Supreme Court, included the Suni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara, All India Hindu Maha Sabha and Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman. On 9th May 2011, the Supreme Court stayed the verdict on Ayodhya of Allahabad High Court. A copy of the said judgment is been annexed by the petitioner as annexure number 2 which reads as under:-
“The appeals are admitted for hearing.
During the pendency of the appeals, the operation of the judgment and decree passed by the Allahabad High Court shall remain stayed. Further, we are pleased to note that there is complete unanimity on maintaining status quo and all the parties are in agreement that order may be passed for maintaining status quo on the disputed site and on the adjoining land.
We, therefore, pass the following orders :-During the pendency of the appeals, the parties shall maintain status quo in regard to suit land, as directed by an earlier judgment and order passed by this Court in ’Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.’ (1994) 6 SCC 360 vide. paragraphs 86, 87, which are reproduced below :
86. The b
