1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 3 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014 B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NOS.3873-3874/2014 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. Smt. Chandrakala, W/o. Sri M. Lokesh, Aged about 26 years, 2. Smt. Bhagyamma, W/o. Sri Shankaregowda, Aged about 38 years, Makali Post, Malur Hobli, (By Sri V. Manjunath, Adv.) PETITIONERS AND: 1. The Secretary, Department of Revenue,
2 Govt. of Karnataka, Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara District, Ramanagara 571 511. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub-Division, 4. Sri Govindaiah, S/o. late Govindaiah, Aged about 74 years, Makali Post, Malur Hobli, 5. Sri Siddalingaiah, S/o. Sri Shivalingaiah, Aged about 44 years, Makali Post, Malur Hobli, 6. Sri Chikke Gowda, S/o. late Marilingaiah, Aged about 72 years, Makali Post, Malur Hobli, 7. Smt. Suni @ Sunitha, W/o. Sri Chikkalingaiah, Aged about 27 years,
3 Makali Post, Malur Hobli, 8. Smt. Bharatamma, W/o. Sri Krishnachari, Aged about 39 years, Makali Post, Malur Hobli, 9. Sri Devalingaiah, S/o. late Boregowa, Aged about 42 years, Makali Post, Malur Hobli, 10. Sri R.T. Ramachandra Murthy, S/o. late Thimmegowda, Aged about 45 years, Residing at Ramanarasimhapura Village, Malur Hobli, 11. Smt. Mastamma, W/o. Sri Muttaiah, Aged about 40 years, Residing at Erulingara Doddi Village, Malur Hobli, RESPONDENTS (By Sri H.T. Narendra Prasad, AGA for R1 to R3)
4 These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the 2 nd respondent to direct 3 rd respondent not to act upon and to quash the notice dated 13.1.2014 vide Annexures-E and E1 respectively. These petitions having been reserved, this day, the Court pronounced the following: ORDER Shortly stated, the facts of the case are that, the petitioners are the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Makali Grama Panchayat (for short the Panchayat ). Respondents 5 to 11, the members of the Panchayat, having presented a Motion of No-Confidence on 02.01.2014, the 3 rd respondent has given notice dated 13.01.2014 in Form-II under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short the Rules ), fixing the meeting of the Panchayat on 29.01.2014 at 12.00 noon at the Panchayat Office. Petitioners having received the notice of the said meeting, filed these writ petitions on 24.01.2014, seeking to quash the said notice and for consequential reliefs.
5 2. Petitions having been classified as (GM-RES), learned Single Judge before whom the matter was listed on 27.01.2014 has directed the Registry to notice that the petitions are to be classified as Local Bodies (LB) and by doing the same, to list before the Court having roster for the subject. 3. On 28.01.2014, after noticing that the petitioners have filed W.P.Nos.3219-3220/2014, arising out of the same cause of action and for grant of the very same reliefs and there being suppression of material fact apart from misrepresentation, learned advocate for the petitioners was asked to first address the arguments on the question of maintainability of the petitions and with regard to the action to be taken on the question of abuse of process of Court. At the request of the petitioners advocate, the case was adjourned to 29.01.2014. 4. On 29.01.2014, Sri V. Manjunath, learned advocate for the petitioners, filed a memo to dismiss the petitions as not pressed. He also filed individual affidavits
6 of the petitioners, tendering unconditional apology in the matter of filing of these petitions, despite W.P.Nos.3219-3220/2014 having been filed on 21.01.2014. Sri V. Manjunath submitted that in view of the memo filed to dismiss the writ petitions as not pressed and the unconditional apology tendered by the petitioners in their respective affidavits, the same may be accepted. 5. Sri H.T. Narendra Prasad, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand submitted that the petitioners having questioned the very same meeting notice in W.P.Nos.3219-3220/2014 filed on 21.01.2014, the filing of which has been suppressed and misrepresentation having been made in these writ petitions to the effect that the petitioners have not filed any writ before this Court or any other Court on the same facts and grounds, there is abuse of process of the Court. He further submitted that the impugned notice in both sets of writ petitions being the same, filing of repeated writ petitions being abuse of process of the Court, amounts to
7 criminal contempt and hence the petitioners may be dealt with appropriately. 6. Perused the writ record and considered the rival contentions and also the submissions made by the senior members of the Bar, present in the Court. The point for consideration is, whether the non-disclosure of filing and / or pendency of an earlier case, arising out of the same or incidental cause of action, amounts to abuse of process of the Court? 7. Undisputedly, the petitioners had questioned the meeting notice, impugned herein, on 21.01.2014, by filing W.P.Nos.3219-3220/2014. These writ petitions have been filed on 24.01.2014 seeking the very same relief. Notification bearing No.R.P.S.16/1977 dated 29 th January, 1977 (KGD 3.2.1977) under the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 issued to regulate the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution mandates as follows: (3a) In every Memorandum of Writ Petition the petitioner shall state as to whether he or any person through whom he claims had presented a Writ Petition on the same cause of action earlier and if so with what result.
8 In para 18 of these writ petitions it has been stated thus: The petitioners have not filed any writ before this Hon ble Court or any other Court on the same facts and grounds. It is a fundamental principle of law that a person invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and must make a full and complete disclosure of facts to the Court. Parties are not entitled to choose their own facts to put forward before the Court. The foundational facts are required to be pleaded enabling the Court to scrutinise the nature and content of the right alleged to have been violated by an Authority. 8. The affidavits filed by the petitioners on 29.01.2014 are identical. In the said affidavits, it has been stated as follows: 3. I submit that I have also filed another writ petition prior to filing the above Writ Petition through another counsel on the same cause of action. In fact, I have filed the above writ petition without knowing the consequences thereon and out of anxiety. However, I have not filed the above writ petition with any ulterior motive or
9 with any malafide intention. I am a house wife. Now I have understood the seriousness of my mistake, by filing the second writ petition on the same cause of action. I am innocent and I have not informed my present counsel about the pendency of my earlier writ petition for the identical relief. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners have not placed correct facts before the Court and by stating that they have not filed any writ before this Court or any other Court on the same facts and grounds, there is suppression of material fact and also misrepresentation. Hence, I am of the opinion that the attempt on the part of the petitioners in filing repeated writ petitions with regard to the same subject matter arising out of the same cause of action, amounts to abuse of process of the Court. 9. In Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2008) 1 SCC 560, where four writ applications were filed with different prayers even though the core issue in each of the matter centered around the same fact, Apex Court has held that such an attempt is abuse of process of law and has further held as follows:
10 16. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar Vs. M.P. Khair Industries, (1980) 3 SCC 311, this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt. 10. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice and hence, the petitioner who approaches the court must come with clean hands, put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything material. There should be candid disclosure of relevant and material facts and the petitioner should not be guilty of misleading the Court. If there were to be any concealment or suppression of relevant and material facts or if any attempt has been made to mislead the Court, the petition without consideration of the merits of the case is liable to be rejected in limine, apart from action being taken for the abuse of process of the Court.
11 11. In K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others, (2008) 12 SCC 481, Apex Court in the matter of exercise of extraordinary power of the writ Court and the facts to be borne in mind has held as follows: 36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a writ court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating "We will not listen to your application because of what you have done". The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. ***** ***** ***** 38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play hide and seek or to pick and choose the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all
12 the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because, "the court knows law but not facts". 39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, (1917) 1 KB 486, is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and clean breast cannot hold a writ of the Court with soiled hands. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. 12. In Vijay Syal and another vs. State of Punjab and others, (2003) 9 SCC 401, Apex Court has held as follows: 24. In order to sustain and maintain the sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the court, when a court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and
13 is concealing material facts it does so at its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take the consequences that follow on account of its own making. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment by courts in dealing with such matters are either mistaken or lightly taken instead of learning a proper lesson. Hence there is a compelling need to take serious view in such matters to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of justice. 13. In Oswal Fats and Oils Limited vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and others, (2010) 4 SCC 728, after survey of the previous decisions Apex Court has held as follows: 20. It is settled law that a person who approaches the Court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. In other words, he owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and refrain from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. If he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person. 14. In V. Chandrasekaran vs. Administrative Officer, (2012) 12 SCC 133, with respect to a petition or an affidavit containing a misleading and / or an inaccurate statement only to achieve an ulterior purpose, Apex Court has held as follows:
14 45. The judicial process cannot become an instrument of oppression or abuse, or a means in the process of the court to subvert justice, for the reason that the court exercises its jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice. The interests of justice and public interest coalesce, and therefore, they are very often one and the same. A petition or an affidavit containing a misleading and / or an inaccurate statement, only to achieve an ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse of process of the court. 15. In the instant case, petitioners have not come forward with all the facts. They have chosen to state that they have not filed any writ on the same of cause of action and the grounds, which is patently false, in as much as, W.P.Nos.3219-3220/2014 were filed on 21.01.2014. There being suppression of filing of W.P.Nos.3219-3220/2014 and also the act of misleading, in view of the memo filed by the petitioners to dismiss the petitions as not pressed, while dismissing the petitions, the petitioners are directed to pay cost of `10,000/- each, to the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks, since there is contumacious conduct on the part of the petitioners in suppressing the filing of W.P.Nos.3219-3220/2014. The statements of the petitioners that they
15 are innocent and being house wives, had no ulterior motive or malafide intention in filing the second writ petition on the same cause of action, seeking the apology is unacceptable, since the petitioners are not only the elected Members of Grama Panchayat but also are holding the post of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha respectively. The challenge in the writ petitions is to the No-Confidence Motion moved against them. The petitioners being well aware of the filing of W.P.Nos.3219-3220/2014 on 21.01.2014 have filed these writ petitions, in less than three days. There is complete lack of bonafides. Since the petitioners are women, instead of initiating contempt proceedings for abuse of process of the Court, they are only saddled with the cost. In case, the cost is not deposited, the Secretary of HCLSC shall take steps for realization of the amount. Ksj/- Sd/- JUDGE