The extraordinary writ jurisdiction is equitable and discretionary, requiring complete and candid disclosure from the petitioner. Suppression of material facts or deliberate misrepresentation constitutes an abuse of judicial process, warranting the dismissal of the petition at the threshold without reaching the merits.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 32 and 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Equitable and discretionary nature - Duty of full and fair disclosure - Suppression of material facts - Consequences of misleading the court - The petitioner approaching a writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all facts without concealing or suppressing anything, and seek appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts, or if the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, the petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.

(B) Fraud - Vitiates all judicial acts - A judgment, decree, or order obtained by playing fraud on a court, tribunal, or authority is a nullity in the eye of law and must be treated as such by every court. Fraud is an extrinsic collateral act which vitiates all judicial acts, but equitable relief remains subject to the conduct of the party invoking such jurisdiction.

(C) Abuse of Process - A party must not suppress or distort material facts to gain an advantage in judicial proceedings. Courts have the inherent power to refuse to proceed with the examination of a case on its merits if satisfied that the process is being abused by a misleading affidavit or suppression of information.

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged a tender process, alleging that the authority had acted in collusion to award a contract to the respondent through fraudulent means. Evidence showed that the appellant had previously authorized a representative to participate in the proceedings but later claimed lack of notice. Furthermore, the appellant failed to disclose that a separate contract awarded to them under a different tender process had been completed, and that the challenged proceedings were a result of a prior judicial directive followed by the authority.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant had not acted with the required candor and had suppressed material facts. The documentary evidence contradicted the claims of the appellant regarding lack of notice and authorization. The court observed that the appellant sought to create an impression of procedural impropriety while suppressing their own involvement in the negotiated process.

Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to discretionary relief under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction when material facts have been suppressed, and whether the respondent acted in breach of fair procedures in the tender allocation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court is equitable, resting on the disclosure of complete and honest facts. Suppression of material facts is a form of 'jugglery' that constitutes an abuse of the judicial process. Consequently, a party who does not approach the court with 'clean hands' and a 'clean breast' is disentitled to any relief, with the court exercising its inherent power to dismiss such matters at the threshold.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated February 16, 2005 in Miscellaneous Case Nos. 9 and 10 of 2005 and Miscellaneous Case No. 57 of 2004 in Review Petition No. 4 of 2002 passed by the High Court of Orissa.

3. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1, Steel Authority of India Ltd. (‘SAIL’ for short) issued tenders for raising, transporting and loading of iron ore lump and fines into railway wagons at Kalta Iron Mine. The tender was required to be submitted in two parts: (i) Techno-Commercial Parameters (Part-I) and (ii) Price Bid (Part-II). Price bid of the tender was to be opened only after opening of the Techno-Commercial Parameters and if the bidder was found qualified. In response to the first notice dated June 5, 2000, 19 tender papers were sold. The authorities, however, received response only from 10 persons. Techno-Commercial Parameters (Part-I) was opened and it was found that only one bidder, namely, M/s Ores India Pvt. Ltd. (respondent NO. 2 herein) was qualified. The process, therefore, had to be cancelled because for opening of Price Bid (Part-II), minimum three Techno-Commercially qualified offers ought to have been there as per Clause 7.7 of Purchase/Contract Procedure, 2000. Re-tender was, therefore, issued on September 8, 2000, but it was also required to be cancelled owing to ‘no perceptible improvement’ in the situation. The tender was floated for the third time, which was unsuccessful. The fourth notice inviting tenders was issued on January 22, 2001. It met with the same fate. Then fifth time, tenders were invited on May 7, 2001 wherein the appellant was found eligible and qualified. His bid was the lowest. The said bid was accepted and the work was entrusted to him. The decision taken by the first respondent (SAIL) came to be challenged by respondent No. 2 in the High Court of Orissa by filing a Writ Petition being OJC No. 3508 of 2002. The main allegation of the petitioner before the High Court (respondent No. 2 herein) was that first respondent (SAIL) cancelled previous four notices inviting tenders only with a view to oblige the appellant and to entrust work to him who could not qualify himself earlier for want of requisite eligible criteria in tender process. Ultimately, the standard as prescribed earlier was relaxed and lowered down in the 5th tender notice. When the present appellant became eligible and qualified, the tenders were opened and his bid was illegally accepted by SAIL. The petition was heard on merits and the High Court vide its judgment and order dated May 30, 2002 dismissed the petition. Respondent No. 2, however, came to know that he was eligible and yet his case was not considered. He, therefore, filed a review in the High Court which was registered as Review Petition No. 4 of 2002. By a judgment and order dated February 3, 2003, the Division Bench allowed the Review Petition and directed the authorities (SAIL) to open fourth tender and consider the case of the petitioner (respondent No. 2) and respondent No. 3 (appellant) afresh in accordance with law within a period of one month from the receipt of the writ. The above order was challenged by the appellant by filing Special Leave Petition in this Court. Special Leave Petition was also filed by SAIL. Both the Special Leave Petitions, however, were dismissed by this Court on November 28, 2003.

4. It is alleged by the appellant that after dismissal of Special Leave Petitions by this Court, SAIL opened tender in presence of the second respondent only without intimating the appellant and in his absence. SAIL also negotiated the rates with the second respondent and decided to entrust the work to him. Meanwhile, several applications were filed before the High Court for clarification and/or modification/ alteration of the order passed in Review Petition. Miscellaneous Case No. 46 of 2004 was filed by respondent No. 2 seeking implementation of the order of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(Online)(SC) 207

C.K. THAKKER,D.K. JAIN, , ,K.D.SHARMA – AppellantVersusSTEEL AUTHORITIES OF INDIA LTD. – RespondentC.A. No.-004270-004270 / 2008 09-07-2008

Cases Referred (9)

C.K. THAKKER,D.K. JAIN, , ,
K.D.SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STEEL AUTHORITIES OF INDIA LTD. – Respondent
C.A. No.-004270-004270 / 2008 09-07-2008