Single Judge Bench dismissed Writ Petition under Article 227 for suppression of material facts regarding prior School Tribunal proceedings and previous petition withdrawn without liberty.
Writ Petition dismissed on grounds of suppression of material facts and lack of maintainability.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
8-wp-2781-11.sxw
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
srj
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2781 OF 2011
Raje Sambhaji Shikshan and Krida Prasarak Mandal, through its Vice President, Solapur & Another
.. Petitioners.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Others.
.. Respondents.
Mr. H.G.Wakshe, for Petitioners. Mr. V.L.Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. A.M.Joshi, for Respondent No.3. Mr. Anant Vadgaonkar, for Intervenor.
CORAM : K.K.TATED, J.
DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2011.
P.C.:
PetitionerManagement is challenging the order dated 28th January, 2010
passed by the Learned School Tribunal, Solapur in Appeal No.54 of 2009
2 8-wp-2781-11.sxw
directing the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent No.3 on her original post and pay her the back wages with all consequential benefits.
3 The learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 raised preliminary issue about maintainability of Petition. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 states that earlier Petition No.3565 of 2010 was filed by the Head MasterPetitioner No.2 individually and the same was allowed to be withdrawn by this Court. He states that this Court did not grant liberty to the Head Master to file a fresh Petition. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3 further submits that Petitioner No. 1 who claims to be Vice President of the Trust has also no right to file the present Petition. He states that in the Appeal No.54 of 2009 filed before the Tribunal, he i.e. Shashikant S. Gaikwad preferred an application dated 17th August, 2009 for joining him as a party Respondent being the Vice President of the Trust. The said application was rejected by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal by order dated 24th September, 2009 passed below Exhibit 21A in Appeal No.54 of 2009. The learned Presiding Officer in paragraph 7 of the said order dated 24th September, 2009 held that Mr. Shashikant S. Gaikwad was not authorized to act as Vice President unless and until he brought certificate to that effect from the Charity Commissioner. Paragraph 7 of the order reads thus:
8-wp-2781-11.sxw
3
It is also appears that, there is no decision of the Charity Commissioner yet stating that the objector No.1 is vice president and objector No.2 is the secretary of the institution and, therefore, unless and until the objector No.1 and 2 bring the certificate from Charity Commissioner's office that, they will also concern with the management, it is found that till then the objectors have no relevance in the instant proceeding. Accordingly, when it is seen that, the proper party who is fully representing the management made by the appellant in his appeal and they are representing the management properly and when the objectors not bring the change report from Charity Commissioner's showing that they are the secretary and the vice president respectively. Hence, there is no need to join such objectors as a party in the proceeding as prima facie it appears that the Charity Commissioner had yet not given any final report accepting the objectors as vice president and secretary respectively. Hence, on the above reasons, there is no substance and merit in the application and, therefore, the prayer to add as a party to the objector in the instant proceeding not found bonafide and, therefore, the application filed by the applicant requires to be rejected. Hence, I proceed to pass following order.
Order
the present Writ Petition filed by Petitioner No.1 as a Vice President and the Petitioner No.2 as Head Master is not maintainable.
5 On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner submits that they filed present Petition after passing a resolution by board of trustees in their favour and, therefore, the present Petition is maintainable. He further submits that the Writ Petition No.3565 of 2010
8-wp-2781-11.sxw
4
was withdrawn, because the same was filed by Petitioner No.2 in his capacity as Head Master. He submits that the Head Master had no authority to file Petition and, therefore, it was withdrawn.
6 I have gone through the affidavit in reply dated 20th April, 2011 filed by Respondent no.3, order dated 11th March,2011 passed by this Court (Coram: Smt. Justice N.N.Mhatre) in Writ Petition No.3565 of 2010 and the order dated 24th September, 2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal below Exhibit21A in Appeal No.54 of 2009. One thing is clear that the Petitioners have suppressed the fact about the filing of the application before the School Tribunal for joining Mr. Shashikant S. Gaikwad as party and the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer below Exhibit 21A dated 24th September, 2009. The Apex Court in the matter of Prestige Lights Limited v/s. State Bank of India, reported in 2007(8) SCC page449 held that if the Appellant suppressed material facts at the time of filing Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, then it does not deserve any relief from the High Court. Paragraphs 33 and 34 of that authority reads thus:
“ Para – 33 It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have
8-wp-2781-11.sxw
5
been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.”
“ Para 34 The object underlying the above principle has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commrs., in the following words:
“[I]t has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief of an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material factsfacts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it the court is supposed to know the Law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside, any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement.”
(emphasis supplied)
As the Petitioner suppressed material facts mentioned above, the
Petitioner, as has been held by the Apex Court, in the case of Prestige Lights Limited v/s. State Bank of India (supra), the relief claimed by the Petitioner can be refused.
7 Besides what is stated above, the Vice President Mr. Shashikant S. Gaikwad was not a party before the School Tribunal and, therefore, there is no question of allowing him to file present Petition on behalf of the Trust, because, he failed to point out any subsequent development, as to whether the Charity Commissioner accepted him as a Vice President of the Trust. Without going into the merits of the Petition, Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground that (i) Petitioner suppressed the
8-wp-2781-11.sxw
6
order dated 24th September, 2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer below Exhibit21A in Appeal No.54 of 2009 and (ii) previous Writ Petition was withdrawn without any liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition.
8 Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(K.K.TATED, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Writ Petition challenging a School Tribunal order is maintainable when the petitioner suppressed prior proceedings where they were denied standing due to lack of Charity Commissioner certifi
Whether a Writ Petition withdrawn without liberty to file fresh petition can be entertained subsequently.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prestige Lights Limited v/s. State Bank of IndiaRelied on¶36
Prestige Lights Limited v/s. State Bank of India, 2007(8) SCC page 449 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Raje Sambhaji Shikshan and Krida Prasarak Mandal & Another
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.3
K.K. Tated
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
