Jharkhand High Court
M/S Rajhans Transport & ... vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 11 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (C) No. 5015 of 2019
........
M/s Rajhans Transport & Warehousing Company Pvt. Ltd.
.... ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through :- Video Conferencing)
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate.
........
10/11.03.2022.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prakash Chandra
and learned counsel for the respondents, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh.
Petitioner, M/s Rajhans Transport and Warehousing Company
Private Limited has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order
as contained in letter No. 81 dated 22.08.2019 (Annexure-3) passed
by Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Special Officer, Agricultural Produce
Market Committee, Chatra, whereby the respondents have directed
the petitioner to vacate the premises.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prakash Chandra has
submitted that the respondent authority is asking for interest on the
amount accumulated due to non-payment of rent, which was not the
condition mentioned in the deed of lease, rather, deed of lease was
signed on 02.02.2017 valid from date of actual possession i.e.
08.12.2015 for a period of 11 months, as the same has been executed
even after expiry of the 11 months from 08.12.2015, as such, such
lease agreement cannot be binding upon the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
subsequent deed of lease, which was signed on 16.10.2017 for a
period of 11 months, on the basis of which the petitioner is running
his business from the suit premises, as such, respondent authorities
may be directed to recall the order as contained in Letter No. 81
dated 22.08.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
I.A. No. 1709/2022 has been filed for deleting the prayer no. 1 made
in the main writ petition and for adding the amended prayer in the
main writ petition that "direction be issued to the respondent nos. 2
& 3 to renew the Lease Rent Agreement of the three Godowns from
the date of renewal of Rent Agreement is due in respect of respective
Godown. Further direction be issued to settle the balance due
amount, if any by appointing the Arbitrartor for making payment."
Learned counsel, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh appearing for the
Agricultural Produce Market Board has submitted that the time
period of second lease agreement, which has been annexed as
Annexure-1/A, executed on 16.10.2017 for the period of 11 months,
has already been elapsed on 15.09.2018, but as per the information,
received from the office of the Agriculture Produce Market
Committee vide Letter No. 25 dated 24.02.2022, that till February,
2022, the petitioner owes Rs. 43,99,501/- excluding the interest part,
as such, no relief can be granted under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
The writ petitioner has not invoke the jurisdiction with clean
hand as reported in the case of Amar Singh Vs. Union of India
(2011) 7 SCC 69 (Para-59 & 60) and K. Jayaram & Ors. Vs.
Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. (2021) SCC Online 1194
Para-12.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court under Article 226 of
Constitution of India, cannot grant such relief to a person, who has
defaulted in payment of rent to the Agricultural Produce Market
Board, which is due till February, 2022 as stated by learned counsel
for the Agricultural Produce Market Board to the tune of Rs.
43,99,501/- excluding the interest part.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amar Singh Vs. Union
of India reported (2011) 7 SCC 69 at Para-59 & 60 has held, which
are profitably quoted hereunder -
59. The aforesaid requirement of coming to court with clean
hands has been repeatedly reiterated by this Court in a large
number of cases. Some of which may be noted, they are: Hari
Narain v. Badri Das [AIR 1963 SC 1558] , Welcome
Hotel v. State of A.P. [(1983) 4 SCC 575 : 1983 SCC (Cri)
872] , G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka [(1991) 3
SCC 261 : JT (1991) 3 SC 12] , S.P. Chengalvaraya
Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1 : JT (1993) 6 SC 331] , A.V.
Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. [(2007) 4 SCC 221 : JT (2007) 4
SC 186] , Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI [(2007) 8 SCC 449 : JT
(2007) 10 SC 218] , Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India [(2008)
2 SCC 326 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 558 : JT (2008) 1 SC
308] , K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [(2008) 12 SCC 481 : JT (2008) 8
SC 57] , G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel [(2009) 3 SCC
141 : JT (2009) 2 SC 71] and Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. [(2010)
2 SCC 114 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 324 : JT (2009) 15 SC 201] .
60. In the last noted case of Dalip Singh [(2010) 2 SCC 114 :
(2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 324 : JT (2009) 15 SC 201] , this Court has
given this concept a new dimension which has a far-reaching
effect. We, therefore, repeat those principles here again: (SCC
pp. 116-17, paras 1-2)
"1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two
basic values of life i.e. 'satya' (truth) and 'ahimsa' (non-
violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma
Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their
daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-
delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-
independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell
truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences.
However, post-independence period has seen drastic
changes in our value system. The materialism has
overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal
gain has become so intense that those involved in
litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood,
misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court
proceedings.
2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has
cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have
any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to
falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals.
In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of
litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new
rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who
attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches
the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not
entitled to any relief, interim or final."
However, this Court is constrained to observe that those
principles are honoured more in breach than in their observance.
Also, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.
Jayaram & Ors. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority &
Ors. reported in (2021) SCC Online 1194 at Para-12 has held,
which is profitably quoted hereunder -
12. It is well-settled that the jurisdiction exercised by the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is
imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court
must come with clean hands and put forward all facts
before the Court without concealing or suppressing
anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are
relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or
relevant material in order to gain advantage over the
other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with
the court as well as with the opposite parties which
cannot be countenanced.
In the view of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Amar Singh (Supra) and K. Jayaram & Others
(Supra), this Court is of the opinion that inspite of being a defaulter
before the Agricultural Produce Market Board, the petitioner invoked
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
against the Agricultural Produce Market Board, which is not tenable
in the eyes of law. The petitioner should approach the Hon'ble Court
under writ jurisdiction with the clean hands and the parties are bound
to disclose all the relevant materials before the Hon'ble Court for the
proper adjudication.
Accordingly, the writ Petition is hereby dismissed.
Pending I.As. stand closed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
