‘Cause of action fundamental to admissibility of writ’
Rs 25,000 cost imposed on ex-Manager SBI
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Feb 24: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh today held that litigant cannot be permitted to ‘pick and choose’ the facts and pollute the stream of justice. Moreover, misleading the court by stating false facts or withholding true facts disentitles a party to invoke equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp
These observations were made by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal while dismissing a petition filed by compulsory retired Manager of the State Bank of India. Moreover, the litigant was burdened with Rs 25,000 cost for concealment of the facts.
The petitioner Madan Lal Goria, resident of Talab Tillo, was serving as Manager, SBI Branch Bharmar, Himachal Pradesh when he was booked by Anti-Corruption Bureau of Himachal Pradesh under the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the registration of FIR, the respondents—SBI initiated disciplinary action against him and imposed penalty of dismissal from service. However, after being approached by the petitioner the Appellate Tribunal modified the punishment of dismissal to the extent of imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement.
Through the petition before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, the petitioner challenged the order of compulsory retirement on various grounds.
After hearing Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi with Advocate Kunal Saini for the petitioner and Government Advocate Sumeet Bhatia for the SBI and perusal of the record, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed, “from a bare perusal of the record it has come to fore that this court lacks inherent territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the case in hand as no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court”.
“The record further indicates that the petitioner is not an employee of J&K, as he was serving as a Manager, SBI Bharmar, Himachal Pradesh. Furthermore, the disciplinary action, inquiry proceedings, inquiry report and the imposition of penalty upon the petitioner have not taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Jammu and Kashmir”, High Court said.
Stating that jurisdiction of a court is contingent upon the cause of action arising within its territory and cause of action is fundamental to the admissibility of a writ as it forms the basis on which a party claims legal relief, High Court said, “no cause of action, not even a fraction of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court as such preliminary objection raised by the respondent qua the maintainability of the instant writ petition is affirmed”.
The High Court also noticed from the record that petitioner had previously filed a writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2013. “The petitioner has deliberately concealed this crucial and material fact from this court and after earning dismissal, the petitioner has now again approached this court through the medium of instant petition to avail the efficacious remedy on equitable grounds”, Justice Nargal said.
Describing this as fraudulent misrepresentation, High Court said, “the act of concealing such a significant fact from the court amounts to an attempt to mislead the judicial process, thereby violating the principles of good faith and transparency that actually govern the legal proceedings”, adding “the petitioner’s conduct clearly constitutes an abuse of the legal remedies and the deliberate misrepresentation of facts with an intent to deceive the court”.
“The law is well settled that the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution will only be granted to the person, who comes to the court with clean hands and without any form of deception, misrepresentation or fraud”, Justice Nargal said, adding “a person, who is found guilty of such fraudulent conduct, is not entitled to get a relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India”.
Holding that litigant cannot be permitted to play “hide and seek” or to “pick and choose” the facts he likes to disclose and keep back or conceal facts, High Court said, “misleading the court by stating false facts or withholding true facts disentitles a party to invoke equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India”.
While dismissing the petition, High Court said, “since the petitioner has approached this court by concealment of the facts, therefore, it is a fit case that he is burdened with the cost of Rs 25,000, to be deposited within four weeks before the Registry of this court”.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
