SIBA PRASAD SAHOO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was once heard and was allowed on 18-5-1990 by quashing Annexures 3 and 4, by which the lease of the weekly market at Hadabadad granted in favour of the petitioner by Gram Panchayat for a period of five years (1-4-1989 to 31-3-1994) was cancelled pursuant to the order of the Government passed in exercise of the power under S. 152 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act'). This was so done, because the Court took the view that the Government had no authority to do so in exercise of its power under S. 152 of the Act. But then, an observation was made in paragraph 7 of the judgement that the "grant of lease in favour of the petitioner by private negotiation was no doubt contrary to the procedure prescribed in the Rules (meaning Orissa Gram Panchayat Rules, 1 (sic))". It was, therefore, felt by one of the Judges deciding that case as to whether "illegal obtaining of the lease..... should be allowed to stand" as stated in paragraph 13 of the judgement. A further hearing on this question was required. The case has accordingly come up for further hearing.

(2.) Before we address ourselves on the submissions made by Shri Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be in the fitness of things to say a few words as to why further hearing in the matter was required. As that order was passed by one of us (Chief Justice) and no reason had then been given, it is deemed appropriate to put the same on record. That view was taken because a writ Court being essentially a Court of equity, it was felt that one who demands equity must do equity. The granting of relief by a writ of certiorari, which was issued in that case, being discretionary, it was felt that discretion may not be exercised in favour of one who had not come with clean hands. In this connection, reference may be made to what has been stated in Vol. 30 of Corpus Juris Secundum at page 473 under the heading "He who comes into equity must come with clean hands". This principle was explained by saying that "the clean hands maxim bars relief to those guilty of improper conduct in the matter as to which they seek relief. It is invoked to protect the integrity of the Court. It is further observed at page 476 that this is a "cardinal maxim and the expression of the elementary and fundamental conception of equity jurisprudence". Another reason requiring further hearing was that a Court has to protect the right of a person which has been legally acquired. It would not advance the cause of justice and the rule of law if illegally procured rights are also protected by Courts of law - this would give encouragement to people to acquire a right illegally and then come to Court to seek protection of the same.

(3.) These reasons are quite weighty and in fairness to Shri Patnaik it may be stated that he did not raise a whisper against the order of further hearing, but made heroic efforts to convince us that no illegality had been committed by the Gram Panchayat in the case at hand in leasing out the weekly market to the petitioner after private negotiation, instead of getting it settled by public auction, which is the procedure which should have been adopted as per the view taken by this Court earlier after referring to the concerned rules.