A division judge bench of the Justice Vipin Sanghi and R.C. Khulbe of Uttarakhand HC has held that the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by a person whose conduct is found to be dishonest.
Facts:
The appellant had preferred the writ petition to seek a direction to the respondents to release his original educational documents which were retained by the respondents, so that the writ petitioner /appellant could participate in the NEET PG-2022 counselling, which was to be held between 15.09.2022 to 23.09.2022. Since these dates have already gone, we have enquired from learned counsel for the appellant, and he states that thereafter the second round of counselling has also been undertaken, and now, the appellant stands allotted the seat in the Government Medical College, Jabalpur to pursue his post graduation. He undertook by way of a bond that, in case, he breaches the said condition, he would deposit an amount of rupees thirty lakhs with interest. He challenged the said condition which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 23.03.2016. However, it was set aside on 19.08.2019.
In the meantime, the petitioner without fulfilling the terms and conditions of the bond, participated in the NEET PG-2022 Examination, and secured the rank 2051. On that basis, he sought release of his original educational documents from the Principal. The appellant preferred Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1647 of 2022 before this Court in which, initially, an order was passed on 22.07.2022. Subsequently, on 29.07.2022, the writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner unconditionally. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the writ petition, wherein the impugned order has been passed.
Observations of the Court:
The court declined to =interfere with the impugned order as the writ petition is still pending. The petitioner had preferred the writ petition, being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1647 of 2022, which he withdrew unconditionally on 29.07.2022. Therefore, this court fails to understand how, on the same cause of action, the second writ petition could be maintained. Even otherwise, the appellant did not fulfill the terms and conditions of the bond. His conduct appears to be dishonest, and the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by a person whose conduct is found to be dishonest.
Decision:
The writ petition was dismissed by this court and they declined to exercise their jurisdiction in favour of a person whose conduct is found to be dishonest under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
Case: Gulab Singh Patel vs State of Uttarakhand and others
Citation: SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2022
Coram: Justice Vipin Sanghi and R.C. Khulbe
Dated: 20.10.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
