Nanbai v. State Of Haryana And Others

127+110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 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

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 C WP 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

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

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