VIJAY KUMAR Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, TONK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Should the order of admission of a writ petition be revoked, if at any stage, it is brought to the knowledge of the Court that material facts have been concealed in the writ petition, which if would have been brought to knowledge of the court, it could otherwise influence the mind of the Court while passing an ad-interim order, is a question involved in this writ petition

(2.) Though this comes for confirmation of order which was passed by this Court on 22.2.93, Mr. K.N. Gupta appearing for the non-petitioner, has raised a preliminary objection that petitioner has concealed the material facts and has obtained ad-interim stay, hence petition should be dismissed. He submitted that order of admission requires to be revoked for that reason. The petitioner is alleged to have concealed the facts relating to filing of a suit for injunction in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Tonk against apprehension of reversion from the post of Jamadar to the post of Chaprasi. The Trial Court rejected the application for grant of injunction. The counsel for the respondent therefore submitted that this fact of rejection of application and that suit is still pending, yet not mentioning in the writ, if would have been brought to the notice of Hon'ble Judge at the time of admission, the writ petition would not have been even entertained. He therefore submitted that the order of admission should be revoked for this deliberate misleading" the court by materially suppressing the fact. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no information of earlier suit or injunction application. Time was, therefore, granted to the parties to place the relevant material in this respect. Arguments were advanced on the preliminary points at length. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that the suit was filed by the petitioner on 22.12.990 wherein he apprehended that his reversion orders would be passed though he had no knowledge of issuance of orders at that point of time. The learned trial court vide its order dated 23.11.1990 dismissed the injunction application. It appears that an identical suit was also filed by one Ramji Lai, yet another employee of the Municipal Board, Tonk, who also filed application for temporary injunction. Argument in both matters were heard. Similarly, both the applications were disposed of by one common order. It appears that Shri Ramji Lai had gone in appeal. Whether the petitioner also filed an appeal, has not been brought to the knowledge of this court till date. The order of reversion of petitioner was passed on 17.10.90 and the injunction suit was filed on 22.10.90. Obviously, the suit was subsequent to the order of reversion which fact was not mentioned in the suit in specific words and it was only mentioned that there was apprehension of reversion. The petitioner has not written a word about all this in the writ petition. The counsel for respondent, therefore, submitted that these facts were relevant, as the suit was even pending on the date the writ petition was filed. His submission is that petitioner was initially appointed as 'Chaprasi' who was given charge of the post of Jamadar vide order dated 6.3.90 which was withdrawn vide order dated 17.10.90. This order has now been confirmed by the Local Self Govt, and petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order of approval though basically the order of reversion remained the same which was earlier to the suit was instituted. The petitioner has not been continuing on that post ever since then and by misrepresenting the facts before this court, he has now obtained ex-parte stay order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that preliminary objection advanced by counsel for respondeni is not tenable either on law or on facts. Civil suit which is alleged to have been filed, has no relevancy as it was filed for permanent injunction in the court of Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Tonk on the basis of reasonable apprehension that he might be reverted. In the suit the order of reversion dated 4.2.93 was not under challenge nor it could be challenged. It is submitted that the petitioner has now withdrawn the suit. It was further submitted that the order of reversion dated 17.10.90 has not been served on the petitioner till date. He has submitted that it is incorrect statement of fact made by the respondent that petitioner has concealed the material directly related to the present controversy. Petitioner's submission further is that the order of reversion is arbitrary as no opportunity has been given to show cause as to why he has been reverted. In this case reliance are made on 1990(2) RLR P. 78 and the case of Lekhraj Vidhyarthi reported in 1990 SC p. 984. Learned counsel for petitioner has also relied on AIR 1956 Allah. P. 324, 1970 Punjab & Haryana p. 529,1979 Raj. P. 58.