State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others vs Lalit Kumar

Ravi Malimath, J

CMP(M) No.1503 of 2011.

The reason assigned for the delay in filing the appeal is that after the order was passed by the learned Single Judge, the same was received by the Superintendent Engineer, IPH Circle, Nurpur, on 06.04.2011, which was thereafter forwarded to the authorities, seeking legal opinion. In the said process, the delay is occasioned. There are no written objections filed by the respondent, opposing the ground for delay. Having considered the reasons assigned, we are of the view that the same constitutes a sufficient cause. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed off accordingly.

LPA No.418 of 2011.

Aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No.11285 of 2008, directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of Annexure R -IV therein, within a period of eight weeks, the State has filed this appeal.

The primary contention of the appellants is that the writ petitioner had approached the Court by suppressing material facts and that suppression of material facts cannot lead to any order in his favour by the Court. It is, therefore, contended that the very writ petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition seeking work charge status. The same was heard alongwith various other cases by a Division Bench of this Court and by a common order dated 28.07.2010, passed in CWP No.2735 of 2010 and connected matters, relief was granted to the writ petitioner. The same was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the State, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the order of High Court was complied with. Notwithstanding the same, the second writ petition has been filed, seeking regularization. The fact of disposal of the earlier writ petition was deliberately suppressed by the writ petitioner, therefore, having suppressed the material fact, he is not entitled to any relief.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent disputes the same. He contends that the subject matters involved in the earlier writ petition and in the instant writ petition are different, therefore, there is no suppression of material facts. However, on hearing learned counsels, we do not find it appropriate to accept the contentions of the respondent. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the second writ petition was on a different subject matter, it was his duty to inform the Court with regard to the earlier petition. Certainly, the disposal of the earlier petition would have had a bearing on the consideration of the second writ petition. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, a man who does not come to the Court with clean hands, is not entitled to any relief by the Court. Hence, on this ground alone, we are of the view that the grant of relief by the learned Single Judge was unjustified in view of the suppression of material facts.

For the reasons assigned, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 21.02.2011, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No.11285 of 2008, is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed.