V TAMIL SELVAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions have a chequered history. THESE two writ petitions can be cited as an example as to how people like the writ petitioner abuses the process of Court by obtaining orders by fraudulent means and by suppression of material and relevant facts.

(2.) BEFORE adverting to the facts of the present two writ petitions, it is necessary for this Court to refer to the previous writ petitions and the writ appeal filed by the very same petitioner for the same subject matter. The first in the series is W. P. No. 1835 of 1991. The prayer in the said writ petition is as follows: To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent/ District Collector, Salem, relating to his Proceedings rocno. 515 of 1989 dated 22. 6. 1989 and Clause 4 of the lease deed relating to the period of expiry of the lease, quash the same as illegal, and direct the 2nd respondent to grant quarry lease for complete three years from 19. 7. 1990 to 18. 7. 1993 in respect of carrying on quarry operation in Survey No. 2 (Part) and survey No. 61/1 (part), measuring in all an extent of 6. 15 acres at ettikuttapatti Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

(3.) THE very same petitioner filed another writ petition viz. , W. P. No. 9008 of 1991 on 1. 7. 1991 through M/s. S. Silambannan and p. Venkatachalapathi. I may state here that the writ petitioner has purposely engaged a different counsel in order to obtain an order from this Court by suppressing material facts, which I will deal with in the later part of this judgment.