http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 7

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 2205 of 2007

PETITIONER:

Arunima Baruah

RESPONDENT:

Union of India & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/04/2007

BENCH:

S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2205 OF 2007

[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9283 of 2006]

S.B. SINHA, J :

Leave granted.

How far and to what extent suppression of fact by way of non-

disclosure would affect a person’s right of access to justice is the question

involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated

23.07.2003 passed by the High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 68 of 2003.

With a view to advert to the said question, we may notice the

admitted facts.

Indian Council for Child Welfare is a Society registered under the

Societies Registration Act and is governed by its Memorandum of

Association as well as Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. Appellant

herein was an employee of the said Society which is a ’State’ within the

meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. She was offered an

appointment. Her services, however, were terminated allegedly without

complying with the principles of natural justice despite the fact that she was

confirmed in her service.

Appellant filed a suit in the District Court on 28.03.2001. An

application was filed for grant of injunction. On or about 9.04.2001, only a

notice to the defendant was issued but no order of ad-interim injunction was

passed. She filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court on 10.04.2001.

Admittedly, in the said writ petition, the fact in regard to pendency of the

said suit was not disclosed. However, before the writ petition came up for

preliminary hearing, she filed an application for withdrawal of the suit on

12.04.2001. The said application allegedly could not be moved because of

the strike resorted to by the lawyers. The writ petition came up for

preliminary hearing on 18.04.2001. A notice was issued therein. Her

application to withdraw the suit dated 12.04.2001 came up for consideration

before the Civil Court and upon a statement made by her, the same was

permitted to be withdrawn by an order dated 30.04.2001. The writ petition,

however, was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court

by an order dated 29.11.2002, opining:

"The petitioner has filed the present writ

petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus for

quashing the order dated 19th March, 2001

terminating the services of the petitioner.

Notice was issued in the writ petition.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 7

In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent

No. 3, it has been disclosed that the petitioner had

filed a civil suit in the District Court on 28th

March, 2001. A photocopy of the civil suit filed

by petitioner for a declaration and permanent

injunction is filed with the counter affidavit as

Annexure R3/A. The prayer made in the suit is for

a declaration that the order dated 19th March, 2001

is illegal, null and void. An application was also

filed for the grant of an ex-parte ad interim

injunction. It appears that no ex-parte ad interim

injunction was granted to the petitioner.

However, without disclosing all these facts,

the present writ petition was filed on 10th April,

2001. There is not even a whisper in the writ

petition about the civil suit. Learned Counsel for

the petitioner does not dispute that such a civil suit

was filed. It is stated in the rejoinder affidavit that

a civil suit was subsequently withdrawn but the

relevant orders have not been filed along with the

rejoinder affidavit.

In view of gross concealment of fact by the

petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is doing

nothing more than forum hunting. Having failed

to obtain any injunction in the civil suit, the

Petitioner has resorted to filing the present writ