9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Suppression of material facts by the petitioners. 2. Abuse of the process of the court. 3. Non-joinder of necessary parties. 4. Maintainability of the writ petitions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Suppression of Material Facts by the Petitioners: The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners suppressed material facts from the Court. Specifically, the Federation, through its President, filed Writ Petition No. 507 of 1989, supported by an affidavit stating no similar writ petition had been filed in any other court. However, the Bank's counter affidavit revealed that the Federation had already filed a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which was admitted but the interim stay was rejected. The petitioners failed to disclose this fact, which was considered a deliberate suppression of material information. 2. Abuse of the Process of the Court: The Court found that the petitioners abused the judicial process by filing multiple writ petitions in different High Courts on the same issue. The Federation filed a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and, after failing to obtain a stay, filed another writ petition in the Supreme Court. Additionally, an affiliated association filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court seeking similar relief. The Court emphasized that such tactics are indicative of a chronic and compulsive litigant and not befitting an association representing high-ranking officers. 3. Non-joinder of Necessary Parties: The Bank objected to the maintainability of the petition on the grounds that the promoted officers, who would be directly affected by the writ petition, were not made parties. The petitioners argued that they did not know the names of the 58 promoted officers. However, the Court found this claim to be false, as the names were published in a bulletin and the officers were impleaded in the Karnataka High Court petition. The Court noted that the petitioners deliberately avoided impleading the promoted officers. 4. Maintainability of the Writ Petitions: Despite the preliminary objections, the Court decided not to dismiss the writ petitions outright. The Court acknowledged the technical arguments presented by the petitioners' counsel and the potential impact on various officers who might suffer due to the new promotion policy. The Court appreciated the stance of the Bank's counsel, who was prepared to contest the writ petitions on their merits. Consequently, the Court overruled the preliminary objections and adjourned the writ petitions for further hearing on their merits. Conclusion: The Court expressed strong disapproval of the petitioners' conduct, emphasizing the importance of truthfulness and responsibility in legal proceedings. The Court highlighted the need for litigants to avoid reckless and dishonest statements in petitions and affidavits. Despite the petitioners' misconduct, the Court chose to proceed with the writ petitions on their merits to ensure that the grievances related to the new promotion policy could be addressed. The writ petitions were adjourned for further hearing on 17.7.90.
|
