Nanbai vs State Of Haryana And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1311 P&H

CWP No.1965 of 2022(O&M)                                               1

127+110

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                                         CWP No.1965 of 2022(O&M)
                                         Date of Decision:08.03.2022

NANBAI                                              ......Petitioner
     Vs
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                         .....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present:Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate
        for the petitioner.

         Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G, Haryana
         for respondents No.1 and 2.

         Mr. Puneet, Jindal, Sr. Advocate with
         Mr. Amandeep Singh Meho, Advocate
         for respondents No.3 to 9.

         Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Advocate &
         Mr. Rakesh Roy, Advocate
         for respondents No.11 & 12.

            ****

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)

CM No.3264 of 2022

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same

is allowed. Written statement on behalf of respondents No.11

and 12 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Main case

Learned Senior counsel for respondents in terms of

their stand took preliminary objections with regard to

1 of 4

maintainability of the present writ petition in the light of pending

suit for permanent injunction.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner has made a recital in sub para 3(vi) of the writ petition

showing filing of suit for permanent injunction in a Civil Court at

Dadri seeking to restrain the respondents from erecting poles

from the land of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for respondents jointly pointed out that

even prayer for grant of interim injunction has been rejected by

the Civil Court against which an appeal is pending before the

Lower Appellate Court. As of now, the petitioner has availed two

remedies. The petitioner has not mentioned about the status of

injunction in this petition by concealing the material facts.

Learned counsel for respondents by relying upon CWP

No.23897 of 2015 titled 'Bhagwati Nigam Gram Udyog

Mandal Ugala Vs. State of Haryana and Others' decided on

24.02.2016 and Orissa Power Transmission Corporation

Limited and Others Vs. Asian School of Business

Management Trust and Others, 2013 (SCC 738) contends that

the petitioner cannot maintain two parallel remedies and that too

by concealment of fact to the extent of not disclosing the factum

of dismissal of prayer for interim relief i.e. rejection of stay

application before the Civil Court. In the light of observations

2 of 4

made in Bhagwati Nigam Gram Udyog Mandal Ujala (supra),

SK Mittal Environmental Engineer Vs. State of Haryana,

1996 (4) RSJ 489 and Pardeep Kumar Vs. Maharshi

Dayanand University, Rohtak, 2000(1) RSJ 510, the petitioner

cannot avail two parallel remedies at one point of time. Even,

the petitioner has already availed the alternative remedy of filing

civil writ.

Having considered the submissions on the preliminary

threshold, I find that the petitioner has already chosen to seek

remedy in a Civil Court and thereafter he cannot turn around to

say that the remedy availed of in the form of civil suit is not an

efficacious or effective remedy. Till date suit has not been

withdrawn.

The person who has not come to the Court with clean

hands does not deserve any equitable relief. Fraud vitiates all

solemn acts and has no equities in law. The person committing

fraud can be thrown out at any stage of litigation. The Hon'ble

Apex Court in catena of judgments viz. S.P. Changalvaraya

Naidu (dead) by LRs. vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs., 1994

AIR (SC) 853; Hamza Haji vs. State of Kerala and another,

2006(7) SCC 416; A.V. Papayya Sastry and ors. vs.

Government of A.P. and ors, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 431;

Balwant Rai Tayal vs. M/s Subhash Oil Company, Hisar

3 of 4

through Sh. Raghunath Sahi, 2003(2) RCR (Rent) 148;

Badami (deceased) by her LR vs. Bhali, (2012) 11 SCC 574;

and Ramesh Kumar and another vs. Furu Ram and another,

(2011) 8 SCC 613 has authoritatively held the aforesaid

propositions to the disadvantage of the person committing

concealment and fraud.

In view of the aforesaid position, I deem it appropriate

not to grant any indulgence in the writ petition. Consequently,

the present writ petition is dismissed.

                                         (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
08.03.2022                                     JUDGE
Amandeep

Whether speaking/reasoned               Yes/No
Whether reportable                      Yes/No




                              4 of 4