JUDGMENT : Girish Chandra Gupta, J. 1. By a notice dated December 15, 2010 the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Manickchawk (BLLRO) invited tenders for settlement of Jalkar in respect of Lakshmi Kol Bishanpur Jalkar (Bishanpur Portion 100% Manickchawk Portion) on the terms and conditions contained therein. 2. Clause - 9 of the aforesaid notice provided, inter alia as follows:– “1/4th of the offered price has to be paid immediately upon acceptance of the tender on the day of opening of the tender itself i.e. January 4, 2011. In default the tender shall stand cancelled and the money deposited by the tenderer whose tender may have been accepted shall stand forfeited and the fishery shall be resettled. The tenderer shall be liable to pay the balance within 15th December…….” 3. The tender was duly opened and the writ petitioner Raj Kumartola Matshyajibi Samabay Samity Ltd. was the highest bidder. From a receipt dated January 4, 2011 it appears that 25% of the lease rental amounting to a sum of Rs.2,87,500/- was deposited by the writ petitioner with the BLLRO. Possession of the fishery was made over to the petitioner on January 11, 2011 for a period of seven years purportedly commencing from 1st day of Baisakh 1417 BS to 31st Chaitra, 1423 BS subject to approval by the higher authority. 4. It may be pointed out that the State authority were under a mistaken belief that the lease was to commence from the 1st Baisakh 1417 BS. On the day when the notice inviting tender was issued it was already the month of Agrahayan 1417 BS. Therefore, the lease could not have commenced on the 1st Baisakh. It was, as such intended to commence on the 1st day Baisakh 1418 BS for a period of seven years. The rates offered by the tenderers as far as material for our purpose are as follows:– “Name of the participants Economic rent Offered amount of FCS Limited for lease rent for 1417 BS 1. Raj Kumar Tola MSS Ltd. 3,50,500/- 11,51,000 (Writ petitioner) 2. Dhanrajgram DSS Ltd. 8,10,001” - (Appellant) 5. The writ petitioner paid 25% of the aforesaid sum of Rs.11,51,000/- on account of rental. The balance 75% was payable by December 15, 2011. 6. The writ petitioner purported to contend that the sum of Rs. Raj Kumar Tola MSS Ltd. 3,50,500/- 11,51,000 (Writ petitioner) 2. Dhanrajgram DSS Ltd. 8,10,001” - (Appellant) 5. The writ petitioner paid 25% of the aforesaid sum of Rs.11,51,000/- on account of rental. The balance 75% was payable by December 15, 2011. 6. The writ petitioner purported to contend that the sum of Rs. 11,51,500/- was a rental for the entire period of seven years as would appear from the following averments made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition being WP No.14833(W) of 2011. “The said respondent no.7 verbally told your petitioner no.2 that Rs.11,51,500/- is not the lease rent for the period of seven years, it is for one year and accordingly threatens the petitioners that if the petitioner no.2 does not pay the said amount demanded beyond the balance lease amount of Rs.8,62,500/-, the said Jalkar would be settled in favour of others……..” 7. On the aforesaid basis the writ petition no. W.P.14833 (W) of 2011 was filed praying for following reliefs. “(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, their men, agents and each one of them to allow the petitioners to carry on their pisciculture in their Jalkar namely “Lakshmikol Bishanpur Jalkar (Bishanpur Kol, portion 100% Manickchak portion)” for the period seven years from the date of handing over possession i.e. from 11th January, 2011 to December 2017 by accepting the balance lease rent of Rs.8,62,500/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Sixty-Two Thousand Five Hundred) during the lease period. (b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, their men, agents and each one of them to forbear from demanding any amount in excess of the balance lease rent of Rs.8,62,500/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Sixty-Two Thousand Five Hundred) during the lese period of seven years and further forbear those respondents from disturbing and/or interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners and their men from rearing and catching fishes in the said Jalkar during their lease period.” 8. The prayers are a clear pointer to show that the writ petitioner proceeded on the basis that total sum of Rs. 8,62,500/- was payable on account of lease rental for the entire period of seven years whereas offered rate of the writ petitioner produced before us by the learned advocate for writ petitioner himself shows that yearly rental offered by him was Rs.11,51, 000/-. 8,62,500/- was payable on account of lease rental for the entire period of seven years whereas offered rate of the writ petitioner produced before us by the learned advocate for writ petitioner himself shows that yearly rental offered by him was Rs.11,51, 000/-. The said writ petition was moved on 29th February, 2012 when an order was passed granting liberty to the writ petitioners to deposit the balance amount within four weeks and an order of injunction was also passed restraining the respondents from disturbing the peaceful possession of the writ petitioners. It was however clarified that in case of failure on the part of the writ petitioners to pay the balance sum within the stipulated period of four weeks or the rent for the subsequent years the interim order shall stand vacated. 9. The writ petitioner did not pay the balance sum within the period prescribed by the order dated 29th February, 2012. In the circumstances, the writ petitioner was informed by a letter dated 19th April, 2012 that the lease in its favour had been cancelled and the same had been settled in favour of the appellant before us. The writ petitioner was also informed that possession had been made over to the appellant before us for the period commencing from 1st of Baisakh 1419 to 31st Chaitra 1423 BS. 10. Challenging the letter dated 19th April, 2012, the writ petitioner instituted W.P.8573(W) of 2012. The said writ petition was moved on 14th June, 2012 but the learned Trial Court refused to pass any interim order since the writ petitioner had “failed to deposit the said amount” as per the order dated 29th February, 2012. 11. An appeal was preferred against the order dated 14th June, 2012, by the writ petitioner. An application for stay was also filed but the learned Appellate Court did not pass any order in favour of the writ petitioner on the ground that possession had already been made over to the second highest bidder that is to say the appellant before us. 12. Both the writ petitions thereafter came up for final hearing on 12th August, 2013 and were disposed of ex parte by a common judgment and order dated 12th August, 2013. 12. Both the writ petitions thereafter came up for final hearing on 12th August, 2013 and were disposed of ex parte by a common judgment and order dated 12th August, 2013. It would be appropriate in our opinion to notice the order dated 12th August, 2013 in extenso which is as follows:- “Both these writ applications are disposed of by this common judgment and order. Despite directions no affidavit in opposition has been filed by any of the respondents. None appears for any of them. According to the petitioner society (the writ petitioner) it is the lessee from the Government of a large water body, Laksmikol Bishanpur Jalkar. It was granted a lease of this water body for seven years from 1st January, 2011 till 31st December, 2017. On 15th December, 2010 the Government of West Bengal inserted an advertisement for resettling this land. The writ petitioner became aggrieved and a writ application being WP No. 14833(W) of 2011 on 2nd September, 2011. An interim order was passed in that writ by Soumitra Pal, J. on 29th February, 2012 asking the writ petitioner to deposit Rs.2,87,500 immediately. In terms of this order, the writ petitioner is said to have deposited the said sum of Rs.2,87,500. Thereafter, the writ petitioner made a further deposit of Rs.1,00,000. They are ready and willing to deposit the rest of the amount but the State is not accepting the same on the ground that the water body has been resettled in favour of the respondent no.9. as I have said before, in spite of notice, the ninth respondent is not appearing. Therefore, continuing the order of Soumitra Pal, J, I direct the writ petitioner to deposit the balance lease rent as determined by the State authorities (without interest or penalty) by 23rd August, 2013 in three equal instalments during the currency of the lease. The time period between any two instalments will be equal. The first instalment is to be paid by 31st August, 2013. In that event, the writ petitioner’s possession of the water body would continue and the lease will not be forfeited. Any amount received by the State from the ninth respondent should be refunded by them to the ninth respondent after receipt of the first instalment from the writ petitioner.” 13. In that event, the writ petitioner’s possession of the water body would continue and the lease will not be forfeited. Any amount received by the State from the ninth respondent should be refunded by them to the ninth respondent after receipt of the first instalment from the writ petitioner.” 13. The order dated 12th August, 2013 was obtained by the writ petitioner from the learned Trial Court on the basis of misrepresentation of facts, some particulars whereof are as follows:-. (a) The lease was granted to the writ petitioners for a period of seven years commencing from 1st of Baisakh 1418, although it has wrongly been referred to as 1417 BS. The notice inviting tender refers to commencement of the lease from the commencement of ensuing 1417 BS. The notice inviting tender was issued on 15th December, 2010 which was equivalent to 28th Aghrayan 1417 BS. Therefore, the year ensuing was 1418 BS and not 1417 BS. The learned trial court however was given to understand that it was lease for a period of seven years from 1st of January, 2011. The lease, as a matter of fact commenced on 15th April, 2011. Advertisement for resettlement of lease could not, as such have been inserted on 15th December, 2010. (b) On 29th February, 2012, Soumitra Pal, J. (as His Lordship then was) passed an order directing the writ petitioner to pay the balance amount. The balance amount was a sum of Rs. 8,63,500/- (11,51,000 – 2,87,500). The balance was not a sum of Rs. 2,87,500/- as the learned Trial Court was given to understand in passing the order dated 12th August, 2013. (c) The learned Trial Court was given a wrong impression that the balance sum payable by the writ petitioner was a sum of Rs.2,87,500/- and that the same had been paid by the writ petitioner. The aforesaid sum of Rs.2,87,500/- was, as a matter of fact, paid by the writ petitioner on the day when the tender was accepted i.e. 4th January, 2011. A further sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, besides initial deposit made on 4th January, 2011, was paid by the writ petitioner. The aforesaid sum of Rs.2,87,500/- was, as a matter of fact, paid by the writ petitioner on the day when the tender was accepted i.e. 4th January, 2011. A further sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, besides initial deposit made on 4th January, 2011, was paid by the writ petitioner. (d) The learned Trial Court was not told that the order dated 29th February, 2012 passed in favour of the writ petitioner was subject to the deposit of the balance amount of Rs.8,63,500/- with the clear stipulation that in default of such payment the interim order would stand vacated. Since the writ petitioner had failed to pay the balance sum the interim order passed on 29th February, 2012 already stood vacated. The learned Trial Court was led to believe that the interim order was still subsisting. (e) On the basis of misrepresentation the order was obtained on 12th August, 2013 directing the State authorities to determine the outstanding rental payable by 23rd August, 2013 and allowing the writ petitioner to pay the sum so determined in three installments. (f) The learned Trial Court was also not informed that possession had already been made over to the appellant as indicated earlier, nor was the order of the Appellate Court passed on 26th March, 2013 brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court. 14. The appellant before us preferred two several appeals challenging the order dated 12th August, 2013 because by the aforesaid order two several writ petitions were disposed of. These two appeals are MAT 1568 of 2013 and MAT 1569 of 2013. These two appeals were filed on or about 27th September, 2013. 15. In the contempt jurisdiction an application was filed by the writ petitioner, alleging that the order dated 12th August, 2013 had deliberately been violated, registered as CPAN 2032 of 2013, which was disposed of by an order dated 4th September, 2015 obviously in the absence of the appellant before us. The learned Trial Court modified the original order dated 12th August, 2013 by granting time for payment of the lease rent provided the applicant was agreeable to an enhancement of 5% on account of rent. Liberty was also granted to pay the rental for the subsequent years in installment which was again contrary to the terms and conditions of the notice inviting tender. Liberty was also granted to pay the rental for the subsequent years in installment which was again contrary to the terms and conditions of the notice inviting tender. The State was directed to pass a reasoned order explaining why the rent for the period had been claimed, from the writ petitioner, when he was not in possession of the fishery. 16. At page 378 of the paper book there is a copy of a letter written by the Block Land and Land Reform Officer, Manichawk, Malda to the Officer-in-Charge on 30th September, 2015 seeking police help for the purpose of making over possession of the fishery to the writ petitioner. The learned Advocate for the writ petitioner submitted before us a certificate of possession which goes to show that on 5th October, 2015 possession was taken over from the appellant and made over to the writ petitioner. 17. Challenging the order dated 4th September, 2015 passed in the contempt jurisdiction arising out of WP 3573 (W) of 2012 and WP 14833 (W) of 2011 two several appeals were preferred by the appellant which were registered as MAT 1507 of 2015 and MAT 1508 of 2015. Both the appeals were filed by the appellant with an application in each case praying for leave to prefer an appeal since the appellant was not a party to the contempt petition. The prayer to prefer an appeal in either case was allowed by an order dated 7th October, 2015. The order passed on 4th September, 2015 was also stayed. 18. On 14th October, 2015 the four appeals and connected applications were listed when an order was passed directing the parties to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing. The writ petitioner was further directed to maintain accounts of the fishing activity which might be undertaken by them. All the matters were taken up for hearing by the Appellate Court on 13th January, 2016 when the writ petitioner alleged that the appellant had poisoned the fishery, as a result whereof the fishes had died which was disputed by the appellant. The appellate Court in the circumstances directed the District Magistrate to take over possession of the fishing tank. The allegation as regards poisoning of the fishery by the appellant was however not believed by the learned appellate Court. The appellate Court in the circumstances directed the District Magistrate to take over possession of the fishing tank. The allegation as regards poisoning of the fishery by the appellant was however not believed by the learned appellate Court. The District Magistrate was in the circumstances directed to run the same by appointing an agency other than the litigating parties. The appellant was granted liberty to file a consolidated paper book for all the appeals. 19. At the time of hearing of the appeals Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, submitted that the appellant was not a party to WP No.14833(W) of 2011, he could not therefore have filed an appeal without seeking an addition in the writ petition. We are not impressed by this submission. A non-party who has been affected by an order may prefer an appeal provided leave of the Appellate Court has been obtained. 20. The second submission advanced by Mr. Ghosh was that the appeals being MAT No.1568 of 2013 and MAT No.1569 of 2013 have been filed on the same grounds. We have not been impressed by this submission either. The two appeals have been preferred because by the order dated 12th August, 2013 both WP No.14833(W) 2011 and WP No.8573 (W) 2012 were disposed of for the reasons appearing from the impugned order dated 12th August, 2013. When the reasons for disposing of both the writ petitions are the same, the grounds challenging the order are also likely to be the same. 21. The third submission of Mr. Ghosh was that the writ petitioner had a cause of action because the lease rent was unilaterally enhanced by the State contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease. This submission is equally without substance. The writ petitioner had offered a sum of Rs,11,51,000/- as yearly rent out of which only a sum of Rs.2,87,5000/- were paid. The writ petitioner untruly alleged that the balance sum of Rs.8,62,500/- was payable on account of rental for the entire period of 7 years which was an untrue allegation to the knowledge of the writ petitioner. The State never claimed anything other than the sum of Rs.11,51,000/- on account of yearly rental. The lease had been settled in favour of the appellant because the writ petitioner had failed to pay the balance 75% amounting to Rs.8,63,5000/- in terms of the notice inviting tender. 22. The State never claimed anything other than the sum of Rs.11,51,000/- on account of yearly rental. The lease had been settled in favour of the appellant because the writ petitioner had failed to pay the balance 75% amounting to Rs.8,63,5000/- in terms of the notice inviting tender. 22. The fourth submission advanced by Mr. Ghosh was that MAT No.1507 of 2015 and MAT No.1508 of 2015 contained the same grounds of appeal. This submission is also without any merit because the order dated 4th September, 2015 passed in CPAN No.2032 of 2013 arose out of the order dated 12th August, 2013 by which the writ petitions being WP No.14833 (W) 2011 and WP No.8573 (W) 2012 were both disposed of. In order to avoid any technical objection two appeals were filed which cannot have the effect of non-suiting him. 23. The fifth submission advanced by Mr. Ghosh was that admittedly the writ petitioner was a lessee for 7 years and the lease had been cancelled. The cancellation of the lease was challenged. The appellant was a party to that writ petition but no affidavit in opposition was filed. 24. It is true that no affidavit in opposition was filed. But Mr. Ghosh is unable to show that as per the terms and conditions appearing in the notice inviting tender, the balance 75% which was payable on or before 15th December, 2011 had actually been paid. The writ petitioner admittedly did not pay the balance sum of Rs.8,63,500/-. He had paid only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Clause 9 of the notice inviting tender provided that in default of payment on or before 15th December, 2011 the tender shall stand cancelled and the fishery shall be resettled at the cost and consequence of the tenderer. It is also provided therein that the payment made by the tenderer shall be forfeited. 25. In that view of the matter, the challenge to the cancellation of the lease in favour of the writ petitioner was altogether without merit. The submission advanced by Mr. Ghosh that the writ petitioner paid the entire lease rent is evidently wrong. The writ petitioner had untruly alleged that the balance sum of Rs.8,62,500/- was payable on account of rent for the entire period of 7 years. 26. All the submissions made by Mr. Ghosh have thus been disposed of. The submission advanced by Mr. Ghosh that the writ petitioner paid the entire lease rent is evidently wrong. The writ petitioner had untruly alleged that the balance sum of Rs.8,62,500/- was payable on account of rent for the entire period of 7 years. 26. All the submissions made by Mr. Ghosh have thus been disposed of. There is no dispute that the fishery was resettled in favour of the appellant after the writ petitioner had failed to pay the amount of lease rental. It is also not in dispute that possession was also made over to the appellant. The appellant was dispossessed forcibly on the basis of the order dated 4th September, 2015. 27. We have already demonstrated that the order dated 12th August, 2013 was obtained by the writ petitioner on the basis of misrepresentation of fact and by misleading the Court. The order dated 12th August, 2013 is, as such non-est. When the order dated 12th August, 2013 is bad the question of any violation thereof does not arise. The order dated 4th September, 2015 is also bad because the order authorized dispossession of the appellant without even hearing him and that too in an application to which the appellant was not a party. 28. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgement in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu –Vs- Jagannath & Ors. reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 wherein the Apex Court held as follows:- “The principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant of 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, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.” 29. For the aforesaid reasons all the appeals are allowed. Both the order dated 12th August, 2013 and 4th September, 2015 are set aside. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.” 29. For the aforesaid reasons all the appeals are allowed. Both the order dated 12th August, 2013 and 4th September, 2015 are set aside. All steps taken pursuant to the orders dated 12th August, 2013 and 4th September, 2015 should, therefore be reversed and status quo ante be restored. 30. Parties shall bear their own costs. 31. Certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties. I agree. Arindam Sinha and Girish Chandra Gupta, JJ.