NAHAKPAM TEJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the writ petitioners and private respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are trying to open the cupboards of one another which are full of skeletons. The petitioners and private respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are not disputing the well settled principles of law that : (a) "a person who does not approach the court with clean hands cannot seek equity". The Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s GAR Re-rolling Mills & Anr.; AIR 1994 SC 2151 held that "there is no equity in favour of a defaulting party which may justify interference by the court in exercise of its equitable extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assist it in not repaying its debts. The aim of equity is to promote honesty and not to frustrate the legitimate rights of the Corporation which after advancing the loan takes steps to recover its due from the defaulting parties." (b) The Apex Court, through the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. H. Ahamadi, Chief Justice (he then was) in the J. H. Patel Vs. Subhan Khan : (1996) 5 SCC 3/2 held that it is not merely a question of equity but a question of principles that a person who deliberately and designedly failed to disclose the information within its special knowledge and failed to produce materials in that behalf, thereby virtually engineering the rejection of his nomination cannot be permitted to raise a fresh ground which would adversely affect the opposite party. (c) The Apex Court in S.J.S. Business Enterprises Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.; (2004) 7 SCC I66 had discussed the circumstances under which writ petition is to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of fact The Apex Court in S. J. S. Business Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, (supra) held that the fact suppressed in filing the writ petition would be suppression of material fact. The suppression of fact which must be material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merit of the case. It must be a matter which was material for the consideration of the Court, where view the court may have taken. (d) The Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Sarav Preet & Ors.; (2002) 9 SCC 610 held that it is the obligation of the writ petitioner to disclose the material fact. Para 4 of the judgment in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Sarav Preet & Ors. (supra) reads as follows :

(2.) Both the parties have to keep in view in mind that the High Court is bound to consider the averments on its true merit before granting the relief to the petitioner. The relief cannot be granted merely because the averments in the writ petition had not been specifically rebutted. According to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association ; (2002) 6 SCC 72, the High Court has to consider the averments of the writ petitioner in the writ petition in its true merits even if there is no specific rebuttal on the part of the respondents before granting the relief to the writ petitioner,

(3.) Keeping in view of the above accepted principles of law, the case of the writ petitioners as well as the case of the private respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 had been taen up for decision on the short material fact alleged by the writ petitioners in the present writ petition and a number of addl. affidavit and rejoinder affidavits filed by the writ petitioners and also those of the respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in their Affidavit in opposition and addl. Affidavit in opposition. Surprisingly in the present writ petition which was filed in the year, 1997 not only the writ petitioners but also the private respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 had filed a number of addl. Affidavit, reply affidavit and rejoinder affidavits without obtaining permission of the court till 9th of June, 2006.