Judgment Common Order 1. The petitioner in W.P.5377 of 2007 is a Tamil Nadu Bee-Keepers Welfare Association claiming to have a registration No.22, atvVettuvenni, Marthandam in Kanyakumari District. In this Writ Petition, they have sought for a direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to dispose of their representation dated 5.12.2005 and for a consequential direction to the 4th respondent Bank to forbear from resorting to any coercive action for recovery of money from the members of the petitioner association as per list enclosed to the typed set of papers. In the list enclosed at page 12 of the typed set, they have given the names of 21 members along with the name of the Village. 2. The grievance of the petitioner as projected in the affidavit was that the association has availed loan of Rs.30 Lakhs in the year 2003 from the 4th respondent Bank for the purpose of improving infrastructure for setting up apiary units and marketing the produce and for purchase of vehicle for the use. After sanction of the loan, the petitioner availed Rs.28.35 Lakhs as loan and Rs.1.65 Lakhs remain to be unutilized. It is claimed that 20% of the loan had to be treated as subsidy. Out of the loan availed from the bank, they have in turn advanced to 21 members of the association, whose names are furnished. The loan amount was to be cleared within a period of 7 years, namely on or before 2010. According to the petitioner association, they have discharged only Rs.2.75 Lakhs out of the said loan amount. The members were not able to clear the loan installments due to drought situation in the first year and due to floods in the second year. 3. The 4th respondent was reminding them of their obligation to discharge the loan. The petitioner association made representation dated 5.12.2005 to the Government of India and prayed for the redressal of their grievance. Their representation is yet to be considered. Under the circumstances, unless the representation is disposed of, the bank is likely to enforce through coercive proceedings for the recovery of the amounts due from the members of the petitioner association. Hence the Writ Petition. 4. It is not clear as to how the consequential prayer sought for by the petitioner association is in any way connected with the representation to be considered by the Government of India. 5. Hence the Writ Petition. 4. It is not clear as to how the consequential prayer sought for by the petitioner association is in any way connected with the representation to be considered by the Government of India. 5. When this matter was listed before this Court on 6.3.2012, Mr.P.N.Radhakrishnan, Standing Counsel for the State Bank of Travancore mentioned that the members of the Association also moved the Madurai Bench with different prayers and hence the Bank is unable to take any decision and for a convenient disposal, the matters pending before the Madurai Bench also should be directed to be heard along with the Writ Petition filed by the Association. Accordingly, this Court directed the Registry to get appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice for posting the Madurai matters to be heard along with the 1st Writ Petition. The Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 9.3.2012 directed the Madurai matters to be transferred to this Court so as to be heard along with this Writ Petition. Accordingly, all these matters were listed today along with the 1st Writ Petition. 6. A perusal of the affidavit in W.P.(MD) Nos.14491 to 14503 of 2010 shows that the members of the very same association have filed the Writ Petitions seeking for a direction to consider the waiver of the loans availed by them in the year 2003 from the State Bank of Travancore under the scheme for Agriculture debt waiver and Debt relief scheme, 2009 and for a consequential direction to the bank to waive the loan payment by the petitioners. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petitions, there is no reference to the Writ Petition filed by the Association, namely W.P.5377 of 2007. Whereas in paragraph 8 of the affidavit, identical averments have been made stating that they have not filed any other Writ Petitions before any court for the relief sought for. Such an averment on the part of the petitioners is wholly unwelcome. 7. The petitioners cannot be allowed to file series of Writ Petitions one before the Principal Court and others before the Madurai Bench without even disclosing the pendency of the earlier Writ Petition which was filed for the very same relief. For the suppression of vital information in respect of the earlier Writ Petition, no relief can be given in these Writ Petitions. For the suppression of vital information in respect of the earlier Writ Petition, no relief can be given in these Writ Petitions. The Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed on the short ground of suppression of vital information before this Court and for not approaching this Court with clean hands. 8. In this context it is necessary to refer to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs Narmada Bachao Andolan reported in 2011 (7) SCC 639 @ 705 & 706. In Paragraphs 163 to 167, it was held as follows: "163.) Whenever the court comes to the conclusion that the process of the court is being abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further with the matter. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of the court by deceiving it. However, the concealed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed, it would have an effect on the merit of the case/order. The legal maxim jus ex injuria non oritur means that a right cannot arise out of a wrongdoing, and it becomes applicable in a case like this. (Vide Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India (1993 Supp (2) SCC 20 : AIR 1993 SC 852 ), Noorduddin v. Dr.K.L.Anand ( (1995) 1 SCC 242 ) Ramniklal N.Bhutta v State of Maharashtra ( (1997) 1 SCC 134 : AIR 1997 SC 1236 ), Sabia Khan v.State of U.P. ( (1999) 1 SCC 271 ). S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P)Ltd. v.State of Bihar ( (2004) 7 SCC 166 and Union of India v.Shantiranjan Sarkar ( (2009) 3 SCC 90 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 575). 164.) It is a settled proposition of law that a false statement made in the court or in the pleadings, intentionally to mislead the court and obtain a favourable order, amounts to criminal contempt, as it tends to impede the administration of justice. It adversely affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. 164.) It is a settled proposition of law that a false statement made in the court or in the pleadings, intentionally to mislead the court and obtain a favourable order, amounts to criminal contempt, as it tends to impede the administration of justice. It adversely affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. Every party is under a legal obligation to make truthful statements before the court, for the reason that causing an obstruction in the due course of justice "undermines and obstructs the very flow of the unsoiled stream of justice, which has to be kept clear and pure, and no one can be permitted to take liberties with it by soiling its purity".(Vide Naraindas v. Govt. of M.P. ( (1975) 3 SCC 31 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 727: AIR 1974 SC 1252 ). Advocate General, State of Bihar v.M.P.Khair Industries (1980) 3 SCC 311 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 688: AIR 1980 SC 946 and Afzal v.State of Haryana ( (1996) 7 SCC 397 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 424)). 165.) In K.D.Sharma v.SAIL ((2008) 12 SCC 481) this Court held that:(SCC p.492, para 34) "34) .....Prerogagtive writs.....are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim" (emphasis added) 166.) While deciding the said case this Court relied upon upon the leading case of R.v.Kensington Income Tax Commissioners ((1917) 1 KB 486 (CA), wherein it had been observed as under (KB p.514) ".....when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief on an exparte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts -(it says) facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it-the court is supposed to know the law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it-the 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 added) "36) ....If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone.....The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it". (emphasis supplied) 167.) In such a case the person who suppresses the material facts from the court is guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi i.e. Suppression or failure to disclose what a party is bound to disclose, which may amount to fraud." 9. In Writ Petition (MD) No.9084 of 2010, the petitioner Jefferson is shown as Serial No.11 in the list of members of the petitioner association shown in W.P.5377 of 2007. He also claimed similar relief. In that Writ Petition also there is no reference to the case pending before this Court. But, however, in the typed set filed by the said petitioner, he has enclosed a copy of the summons received from the Debt Recovery Tribunal in O.A.No.143 of 2009 filed by the State Bank of Travancore. In that summons issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, the name of the members of the petitioner association including the petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos.9084 and 14491 to 14503 OF 2010 are disclosed. Therefore, as rightly contended by the petitioner, the attempt made by the petitioner association as well as the individual members is somehow to ward off in paying the dues by filing such a frivolous petition. 10. It is not clear as to how the petitioner's representation said to have been sent to the Central Government can grant them relief so as to waive loans availed by them from the State Bank of Travancore. 11. 10. It is not clear as to how the petitioner's representation said to have been sent to the Central Government can grant them relief so as to waive loans availed by them from the State Bank of Travancore. 11. In the counter affidavit filed by the State Bank of Travancore dated 18.2.2008, it was claimed that at the request of the members, the replacement was rescheduled and it is thereafter for a period of 3-1/2 years, they have paid only a sum of Rs.6,82,197/-and gave a compromise letter on 5.1.2008 for the payment of the remaining loan amount of Rs.28,50,000/- towards principal and the balance amount of interest to be settled before the end of March 2008. Therefore, it was alleged that the action of the petitioners are only to protract proceedings initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act and they have no intention to repay the loan. It is stated that the public money has been advanced as loan and they have no right to forestall the recovery from the defaulting borrowers. 12. In the additional typed set filed by the petitioner in W.P.NO.5377 of 2007, they have also enclosed the possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act by the State Bank of Travancore. The sanction letter granting loan has also been produced by the bank in the typed set filed by them. The members have not only entered into an agreement along with the hypothecation agreement and also the Deed of Guarantee as well as the Deed for grant of loan. Their request sent for waiver of the loan has also been rejected by the Internal Committee of the Board of Directors of the Bank. It was also informed to them by the National Horticulture Board by their letter dated 25.5.2005. A copy of the letter sent by the petitioner association is produced at page 16 of the typed set and it reads as follows: "On behalf of the beneficiaries of loan, I am writing the letter today on 5.1.2008. I am giving a cheque for the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) and promising to pay another Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) on 11.1.2008 and I assure to repay almost all loan amount of Rs.28.5 lakhs towards the end of this month and the balance amount of interest will be settled in compromise by the end of March 2008. I am giving a cheque for the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) and promising to pay another Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) on 11.1.2008 and I assure to repay almost all loan amount of Rs.28.5 lakhs towards the end of this month and the balance amount of interest will be settled in compromise by the end of March 2008. Even the fact of such letter was not referred to in the affidavit filed on behalf of the association in W.P.5377 of 2007. 13. In the counter affidavit filed by the State Bank of Travancore, it was stated that the waiver scheme floated by the Government of India will not apply to the members of the petitioner association as the scheme exempts the society from the purview of its applicability. The loan was availed by the petitioner society, which is the registered society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and hence the benefit of waiver does not apply to the case of the petitioners. It is also stated that the non-grant of subsidy has no relevance to the repayment of the loan. A copy of the guidelines issued for the Agricultural Debt dated 23.5.2008 as presented in the Union Budget for the year 2008-2009 is also enclosed in the additional typed set filed by the bank, supporting the stand of the bank. 14. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the National Horticulture Board, namely the 3rd respondent in W.P.5377 of 2007, it was clearly stated that the petitioner association was not entitled for any subsidy, thereby making to appear as if the petitioner has no right for waiver of the loans. The Writ Petitions are filed only to forestall the repayment of the loan and prevent the State Bank of Travancore from initiating the recovery proceedings. 15. This Court does not find that any case is made out to entertain the Writ Petition No.5377 of 2007. Hence, W.P.No.5377 OF 2007 stands dismissed. No costs. 16. Consequent upon the dismissal of the Writ Petition No.5377 of 2007, the other Writ Petitions filed by the individuals, namely W.P.(MD) Nos.9084 and 14491 to 14503 of 2010 also do not stand for any legal scrutiny and the matters are not only dismissed on merits but also for suppressing the vital information of the earlier Writ Petition filed by the members of the association. 17. Hence, all the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. 17. Hence, all the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. This Court though could have ordered exemplary costs, yet considering the facts and circumstances of the case, refrained from doing so.