TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... But the said facts have not been disclosed by the petitioner while filing this present petition. The said writ petitions are as under:- Type No. Year Petitioner Respondent Date of filing 1. Misc. Bench-1008-2020 DHAN PRAKASH BUDHRAJA U.P.POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD LUCKNOW THROUGH MEMBER SECY. & ORS. 13.01.2020 2. Misc. Bench-1053-2020 DHAN PRAKASH BUDHRAJA CHIEF FIRE SAFETY OFFICER PANCHAM TAL INDIRA BAHWAN LKO. & ORS. 13.01.2020 3. Misc. Bench-1162-2020 DHAN PRAKASH BUDHRAJA COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX INVESTIGATION LKO. & OTHERS 14.01.2020 4. Misc. Bench-1230-2020 DHAN PRAKASH BUDHRAJA LUCKNOW NAGAR NIGAM LUCKNOW OFFICE LALBAGH LKO. & ORS. 14.01.2020 5. Misc. Bench-1281-2020 DHAN PRAKASH BUDHRAJA U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS. 16.01.2020 6. Misc. Bench-1310-2020 DHAN PRAKASH BUDHRAJA DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, NEW DELHI & OTHERS 16.01.2020 7. Misc. Bench-19931-2019 DHAN PRAKASH BUDHRAJA THE UNION OF INDIA THRU. MIN. OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS & ORS. 19.07.2019 8. Misc. Bench-33911-2019 DHAN PRAKASH BUDHRAJA STATE OF U....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied) (c) On 27.01.2020, this Court has passed an order in writ petition no. 1008 (M/B) of 2020 which reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the writ petition. As prayed, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn." (Emphasis supplied) (d) On 27.01.2020, this Court has passed an order in writ petition no. 1053 (M/B) of 2020 which reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the writ petition. As prayed, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn." (Emphasis supplied) (e) On 17.01.2020, this Court has passed and order in writ petition no. 1230 (M/B) of 2020 which reads as under :- "List of fresh cases is being revised. No one is present on behalf of petitioner. Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, Advocate is present for opposite party no. 1. Notice of opposite party nos. 2 has been accepted by Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate. This writ petition has been filed seeking direction to opposite party nos. 1 & 2 to forthwith take action on the complaint of the petitioner dated 16.09.2019 sent through speed post. Mr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... through speed post, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Accordingly, it is submitted by Shri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In view of the said facts on 03.02.2020, this Court has passed an order, which reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel as well as Shri Manish Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1. The present petition has been filed by Shri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate. Subsequently, Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the present case, the petitioner, for same cause of action, although against different authorities, has filed writ petition with prayer of mandamus that necessary investigation may be done against private respondents. He has produced details of the matter, the same is taken on record. Shri Dhan Prakash Budhraja is present before this Court. As prayed by Shri Dhan Prakash Budhraja as well as Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, we hereby adjourn the matter for today.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht petitions have been filed including the present writ petition. In six of the writ petitions the reliefs claimed are identical one, as admitted by Shri Dhan Prakash Budhraja and two writ petitions, one is for transfer of investigation (W.P. No.19931(M/B) of 2009) and other one is for relief to quash the map sanctioned by Lucknow Development Authority (W.P. No.33911 (M/B) of 2019). Further from the material on record, the position which emerges is that Shri Dhan Prakash Budhraja, who has sworned the affidavit in the present petition, has neither stated in the writ petition in respect of filing of earlier petitions nor brought to the notice of this Court. He said that when the present petition was taken up for argument or when the arguments were advanced by Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, the said facts were brought to notice of this Court by Shri Manish Misra, learned counsel for the opposite party. So, the same act is nothing but amount to suppression of material facts on the part of the petitioner. Keeping in view the said facts as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India : (200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayshree and Ors. v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Ors.: (2009) 3 SCC 141 . In Dalip Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 114], the Apex Court seriously criticized the making of false statement on oath and the attempt of a litigant in misleading the Court. It is settled law that one should approach the court with clean heart and clean mind to get a relief and one who does not come with clean heart and clean mind, dis-entitles himself from getting any relief from the Court. From what has been mentioned above, it is clear that the petitioner has filed this writ petition with oblique motives and has not presented the correct facts just to gain undue advantage. Such type of practice should always be discouraged and is highly deprecated. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice. In Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and others, 2003 (Suppl.) 3 SCR 352 , it was reiterated after referring to various earlier decisions of the Apex Court that fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that "Fraud and justice never dwell together" (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining the petitioners on their behalf. In Union of India & Ors. Vs. M.Bhaskaran, 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 100, the Apex Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society. Vizianagaram & Anr. Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655, observed as under:- "If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a Court of Law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer." Similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of S. Pratap Signh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72;. Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi & Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 319; a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... granted by section 50 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. In Tan Bug Taim V. Collector AIR 1946 Bom 216, an order requisitioning property was held ultra vires. The words "any law" were interpreted as wide enough to include all kind of law, statutory or otherwise. After the commencement of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is empowered under Article 32 to issue mandamus for the enforcement of fundamental rights, while every High Court has power to issue mandamus under Article 226 for the enforcement of fundamental rights and also for "any other purpose" throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Mandamus differs from prohibition and certiorari in that, while the former can be issued against administrative authority, the latter are available against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities. Certiorari acts where the courts and tribunal usurp jurisdiction vested in them or exceed their jurisdiction. Whereas mandamus demands activity, prohibition commands inactivity. While mandamus compels, certiorari corrects. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. It is not a writ of right. It is intended to supply deficiency in law and is thus a discr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an only be issued to prevent injustice. A court will consider whether issuance of mandamus would promote substantial justice or perpetuate injustice. "writ of mandamus will not be granted where harm than good will result from its issuance." (See Wade & Forsyth, Administration Law (2009) 524). A writ of mandamus can be issued if the following conditions are satisfied by the petitioner: The petitioner must have a legal right. This is a condition precedent. It is elementary that no one can ask for mandamus without a legal right. There must be legally protected and judicially enforceable right before an applicant may claim mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved to do something or to abstain from doing something. The existence of right is thus the foundation of the jurisdiction of a writ court to issue mandamus. (See Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar, (1973) 1 SCC 485). Hon'ble the Apex Court in Praga Tools corpn. V. Imanual (1969) 1 SCC 585 (Praga Tools Corpn.) held that "the condition precedent for the issue of mandamus is that there is in it one claiming a legal right to the performance of the legal duty by one against whom it is sought". In Mani Subrat Jain ....