AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1779
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... their favour within Hotel Natraj Vehar Complex in an open deed as per the advertisement in the year 1996 published by the then Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Patna. On payment of the amount as required at that time and since then they are enjoying peaceful possession of the shops which are the main source of their livelihood, but all of a sudden the respondents-authorities have come up with an order cancelling the agreement due to violation of the terms and conditions as stipulated under Clause 20 and 20(i) and for violation of condition No. 4 and 9 of the lease deed agreement by invoking the condition No. 20 and 20(i) of the aforesaid lease deed agreement. In consequence of cancellation of the agreement, the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar has directed the petitioners to vacate the shop failing which the same will be vacated by deputing Magistrate and police force and the amount incurred on it shall be recovered by the lessee. 4. The ground for assailing the aforesaid order is that before doing so, the principle of natural justice has not been followed and therefore since the matter relates to civil consequence, the principle of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioners when they have found that they have violated the condition No. 4 and condition No. 9 of the lease deed agreement, have invoked condition No. 20 and thereby cancelled the lease deed agreement for violation of the terms and conditions hence there is no illegality in the same because the petitioners who have filed reply to the show cause have admitted with respect to non-compliance of the condition stipulated in condition No. 4 of the lease deed agreement. 7. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation has raised the issue of maintainability of the writ petitions for the reason that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hand rather the writ petitions have been filed by suppressing the material fact to the effect that no opportunity of hearing has been given to them basis upon which the law points have been formulated and the specific assertion to that effect has been made in the writ petitions but the same is incorrect in view of the fact that petitioners have been issued with show cause notice which has duly been responded by them in which they have admitted the default committed by them so far it relates ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gard." Condition No. 20 which speaks about adverse action to be taken against the lessee in case of violation of terms and conditions of the lease deed agreement which is being referred hereinbelow: "If it comes to the notice of the Lessor at any stage during the lease period that the lease of the aforesaid property has been obtained by misrepresentation or misstatement or suppression of the fact or fraud or if the Lessee violates any of the terms and conditions of this lease agreement or if he/she fails to clear all his/her dues including statutory charges/dues payable to the Lessor or any other competent authority/authorities within three months of the same failing as dues, then the lessor shall have rights to take any or all action as stated hereunder: (i) The lease may be terminated/cancelled without any compensation to the Lessee. (ii) The Lessee shall be summarily evicted and expenses incurred in getting the Lessee evicted including penal interest thereon shall be recoverable from the Lessee and dues. (iii) All the properties of the Lessee situated in and around the said leased property shall be seized and disposed off by the Lessor and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t found satisfactory the decision has been taken for cancellation of lease having not been granted by virtue of said lease deed agreement. It is evident that the response given by them in case any one of the writ petitions i.e. in W.P.(C) No. 3179 of 2018 that they have admitted the default in making payment municipal charges as required to be paid in view of condition No. 4 of the lease deed agreement. However, so far as the ground of subletting the shops in favour of others, the same has been disputed but the question herein is that the writ petitions have been filed by suppressing the material facts on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice and this Court after taking into consideration has passed an interim order to maintain status quo as exists on that day i.e. on 04.07.2018 thereby there is no confusion in the fact that the petitioners by suppressing the material fact of not following the principle of natural justice has got an interim order by this Court and also for a long period. 12. The question herein is that as to whether in case of suppression of material fact the writ will be held to be maintainable being the writ court of equity? 13. It i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lterior purposes and the interim order passed by the High Court in such subsequent application was set aside by this Court. Similarly, a challenge to an order fixing the price was rejected because the petitioners had suppressed the fact that an agreement had been entered into between the petitioners and the Government relating to the fixation of price and that the impugned order had been replaced by another order." 14. In another judgment which was rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Arunima Baruah Vs. Union of India and Others, (2007) 6 SCC 120 material fact has been defined. It has been held by their Lordship at paragraph 12 which is quoted hereinbelow: "12. It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the relief. If t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449 their Lordship have held that the writ petition cannot be entertained in case of suppression of material facts. Even in the judgment relied upon by learned counsel in case of K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authorities of India Ltd. reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 wherein at paragraph Nos. 34, 36, 38 and 39 it has been held as under: "34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward al the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. 36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court." 16. Thus there is no dispute about the fact that the litigant who is approaching the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the constitution of India to High Court is supposed to come out with a clean hand and without suppression of material facts and the material facts has been defined which mean material for the purpose of determination of the issue. In the light of these judgments now the fact of the case is to be examined regarding suppression of facts which can be said to be material suppression important for determining the issue. 17. In the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 and in the judgment rendered in the case of A.V. Papayya Sashtry Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221 wherein it has been held that the fraud vitiate everything and by doing fraud one gain at the cost of loss of another. It is thus evident that it is the duty of the litigant to approach the Court of equity with clean hand and it is not available to him that which fact is to be disclosed and which fact is not to be disclosed rather his duty is only to approach the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned order is not fit to be considered on account of fact that the said ground has not been taken up in the writ petitions rather complete ignorance has been shown regarding issuance of show cause notice and the reply and when the counter affidavit has been filed, petitioners have tried to impress upon the Court regarding non-consideration of the response given by them in its reply in terms of the show cause notice which is not fit to be considered by this Court due to the conduct of the petitioners who have tried to mislead this Court and also succeeded in getting an interim order of maintaining status quo. 20. So far as the question of jurisdiction of Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar is concerned, it is evident from the order passed by him that on request by Jharkhand State Tourism Development Corporation the said action has been taken in the Magisterial capacity since the Sub-Divisional Office is also Sub-Divisional Magistrate discharging the Magisterial duty. It needs to be clarified herein that the Jharkhand State Tourism Development Corporation is a corporation constituted by the decision of the State Government to maintain and secure ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. In view of the legal position explained by us above, we therefore, refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India." 22. In the case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 wherein their Lordships have held at paragraph-39 which is being quoted herein below: "39. We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasizing that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in straitjacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason-perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling-it is....