TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the writ petition under Article 32 was maintainable in view of defective affidavits, suppression of material facts, and shifting stand by the petitioner; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to relief when the petition rested on unverified and unreliable factual assertions.
Issue (i): whether the writ petition under Article 32 was maintainable in view of defective affidavits, suppression of material facts, and shifting stand by the petitioner.
Analysis: The petition was founded on allegations of unlawful telephone interception, but the supporting affidavit did not distinguish personal knowledge from information and belief, nor did it disclose the source of information as required by the governing affidavit rules. The petition also suppressed material facts, including the petitioner's own statement in the criminal investigation and the later affidavit withdrawing allegations against one respondent. The Court treated these defects, together with the inconsistent stands taken by the petitioner, as fatal to the credibility of the proceedings.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not fit to be entertained on merits and was liable to be dismissed for want of candour and proper verification.
Issue (ii): whether the petitioner was entitled to relief when the petition rested on unverified and unreliable factual assertions.
Analysis: The Court held that a litigant invoking extraordinary jurisdiction must come with clean hands and make a full, fair, and candid disclosure of all material facts. A petition supported by perfunctory verification and material suppression cannot be used to obtain interim or final relief, and the Court declined to examine the alleged telephone tapping on merits. The interim restraint on publication was vacated, and the Registry was directed to scrutinize affidavits strictly in future.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to any relief on the basis of the petition as presented.
Final Conclusion: The proceeding ended in dismissal because the Court found the petition to be vitiated by defective verification, suppression of material facts, and lack of candour, leaving the merits unanswered.
Ratio Decidendi: A petitioner seeking extraordinary relief must file a properly verified affidavit with full and fair disclosure of all material facts, including the source of information where relevant; suppression of material facts and defective verification disentitle the petitioner to relief.
TaxTMI 
