Ajaib Singh v. State Of Haryana And Others
!
"#
!$%&%"
'
( ( )
* %+ ,% -.
((((((! % %"
!/ 0&( !
"# /1
" .!/&
(((((((((!&2"
!
&
3!&.
/1
(((! % %"
!/ 5&(
!
"# /1
" .!/& 6(!&2"
!
&
4'
7 8 4( , (,( 8
7 8 4,( ,
!!!!!
(,(, 8 :
( ; 8< " #$ #% &##'
(% (( &##'
'
$ )
*
(+,'
- . /
0 1
%=>
!5% !
"# /1
&#('
2$3
4+5 6 5( #( &#&5
7
! " #$ %
&%'!
%
(
!
"
#$ % &'
& #$()
&
* +# ,, ,,,-.
&
#), /
0 "
" . /
/ 1 /!& %-!
8%-. & ( 5&( !
"#
%
&##% 2'3 -1213 '$ 7 32. It is thus clear that though the appellantCompany 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 been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.
The object underlying the above principle has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJ KB 257 : 116 LT 136], in the following words:
It 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 on an ex parte statement he should made a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help itthe 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)
34. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible." "
/ / /
/ 0/
- (#####87
/
;(,( 8 <
!+/?
/1 :
)
; <
9
: 9 - ;