KAMLA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MUZAFFARNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. This writ petition has been filed for seeking a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner for compensation as petitioner's husband died by electrocution.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case, as stated by the petitioner, are that petitioner's husband died of electrocution on 13-5-2000 and an application/representation under Section 3/7 of the U. P. Public Liability Insurance Act is pending before the said respondent, which has not yet been decided. Hence the direction should be issued to the said respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner. During the course of the argument Shri S. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked as to why the different facts have been given in the body of the petition than that of the F. I. R. lodged in respect of the same incident by the son of the petitioner. In the F. I. R. what has been stated is that the victim was ploughing the field by Tractor, and when he reached beneath the live electric wire, which had been on a very low level, the tractor-hood came in contact with the live wire and he died on the spot, while in the petition, the facts have been narrated in a different manner, i. e. , when the deceased was going in a Tractor the live electric wire had broken and fell down upon him causing instantaneous death of the husband of the petitioner. THE learned counsel for the petitioner replied that the Court cannot ask such an irrelevant question; petitioner had come here only for seeking a direction to decide the representation and not to decide the case itself and when he was asked why the Court itself cannot decide the case, the learned counsel answered that the Court doubts the bona fide of the petitioner, thus it has no right to entertain the petition, the case should be released so that it may be heard by some other Bench. Even at that stage, in order to ascertain the facts we wanted to issue notice to the respondents and then pass an order or decide the case ourselves for the reasons in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 585 of 2004, Smt. Shail v. Shri Manoj Kumar & Ors. , decided on 29th March, 2004, the Hon'ble Supreme Court placing reliance upon its judgment in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. , (2003) 6 SCC 675, held that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution, can also pass an order which any Court, Tribunal or Authority subordinate to it could pass, and such a power can be exercised even while the High Court is entertaining the Contempt Petition. As the provision of Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872 empowers the Court to ask questions relevant, irrelevant, related or unrelated to the case to the party to ascertain the true facts, we fail to understand why the said principle cannot be applied in writ jurisdiction. THErefore, we are of the considered opinion that a lawyer or a party is not permitted to tell the Court that the question put to him is irrelevant. Asking a lawyer to explain the difference in facts mentioned in the pleadings and in the documents filed by the petitioner to substantiate his case, cannot be held to be irrelevant or unwarranted. Even otherwise, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has to ensure that writ petitioners always approach the Court with clean hands and must state true and correct facts in the petition. Mis-statement of fact in the petition itself is a ground to refuse to exercise power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution as writ is a discretionary relief and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

(3.) IN R. D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma, AIR 2000 SC 2912, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "in our country, admittedly, a social duty is cast upon the legal profession to show the people beckon (sic beacon) light by their conduct and actions. The poor, uneducated and exploited mass of the people need a helping hand from the legal profession, admittedly, acknowledged as a most respectable profession. No effort should be made or allowed to be made by which a litigant could be deprived of his rights, statutory as well as constitutional, by an Advocate only on account of the exalted position conferred upon him under the judicial system prevalent in the country. "