Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 167 (MEG)

Borhan Uddin Akond v. State of Meghalaya

2014-07-03

S.R.SEN

body2014
Judgment Sudip Ranjan Sen, J. 1. Heard Ms SG Momin, the learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that, by suppressing the material of facts pertaining to the participation in the Meeting, the respondent No. 6 has obtained the order of this Court dated 27.08.13. The learned counsel further submits that, the respondent No. 6 has attended the Meeting dated 15.06.13, but the said fact was not disclosed before this Court, hence, has compelled this Court to pass erroneous order dated 27.08.13. 2. Mr. SA Sheikh, the learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits that, he has attended the Meeting of guardian and not the Meeting for the re-constitution of the School Managing Committee. The learned counsel further submits that, whether the third party who was not a party in WP(C) No. 167 of 2013 can approach and bring to the notice of the Court that an order has been obtained by fraudulent means or by suppression the material of facts. 3. Mr. ND Chullai, the learned senior counsel appeared for on behalf of the State clarified that, the Meeting was held on 15.06.13 and the respondent No. 6 had participated in the said Meeting and resolution was also passed, therefore, the respondent No. 6 cannot deny that he has not attended the Meeting. The learned senior counsel also argued that, the Court has the power to re-call the order which was obtained by suppression of facts. Further, the learned senior counsel relied on (2007) SCC Vol. IV 221 as well as (2007) SCC Vol. VI 120. 4. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel and after going through the Annexure-7 which clearly stated that, the Meeting was held on 15.06.13 in the School premises under the Chairmanship of Shri. LD Shira, MDC to reconstitute the School Managing Committee. On further perusal of the list of the participants who attended the Meeting, it is apparent that the name of the respondent No. 6 appeared at Sl. 177. I have also perused the resolution at Page 30 which also speaks that, the Meeting was held and Member of Committee was also selected in that Meeting. If is so, in my considered view, this Court should not have passed the order dated 27.08.13 in WP(C) No. 167 of 2013 since the meeting was held on 15.06.13. 5. 177. I have also perused the resolution at Page 30 which also speaks that, the Meeting was held and Member of Committee was also selected in that Meeting. If is so, in my considered view, this Court should not have passed the order dated 27.08.13 in WP(C) No. 167 of 2013 since the meeting was held on 15.06.13. 5. It is apparent from record that, the meeting was held on 15.06.13 which was never brought before this Court while passing the order dated 27.08.13 which was certainly a suppression of material of a facts. It is the principle of law that, he who comes with equity must come with clean hands. No litigant/lawyer has any right to obtain any order from the Court by misleading or by suppressing the material of facts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. vrs. Govt. A.P. & Ors. reported (2007) 4 SCC 221 at Para-28 was pleased to observed that : The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the legislation 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment at Para-31 also observed that : The Judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under Section 151 CPC, to recall its judgment or order if is obtained by fraud on court. In the of fraud to the suit or proceedings, the court may direct the affected party to file separate suit for setting aside the degree obtained by fraud. Inherent powers are powers which are resident in all courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and the constitution of tribunals or courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officer form indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behavior. Inherent powers are powers which are resident in all courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and the constitution of tribunals or courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officer form indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behavior. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the Court's business. 7. Now the question remains, whether the third party who was not a party in main petition, can approach and bring to the notice of the Court that, an order has been obtained by any party by means of fraudulent or suppression of facts. In my consider view, the time has come and it is the duty of every citizen of the country or any individual capacity or otherwise to apprise the court when order has been obtained by an unscrupulous person by practicing fraud or suppression of material of facts. 8. After considering the pros and cons of the case placed before me, I am of the conclusive view that, had respondent No. 6 disclosed the actual material of facts about Meeting dated 15.06.13, the order dated 27.08.13 in WP(C) No. 167 of 2013 would not have taken place. Therefore, I recall the order dated 27.08.13 and also express my anguish and displeasure the way the respondent No. 6 presented the case by suppressing the material of facts for which he is liable to pay the cost of Rs. 50,000/-. 9. Let the above said amount be deposited with the Registrar General of this High Court within a period of 2(two) months from the date of this order and Registrar General will divert the money to the Director of Social Welfare, Government of Meghalaya who shall utilize this fund for the benefit and welfare of Juvenile Home at Meghalaya. 10. With these observations and directions the matter stands disposed of.