1992 (10) TMI 267 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Abuse of Court Process
2. Suppression of Material Facts
3. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel
4. Execution of Lease Agreement
5. Illicit Quarrying and Violation of Lease Conditions
6. Renewal of Quarry Lease
7. Conduct of Legal Counsel

Detailed Analysis:

1. Abuse of Court Process:
The judgment highlights how the petitioner abused the court process by repeatedly filing writ petitions for the same subject matter, despite earlier dismissals. The court noted that the petitioner obtained orders through fraudulent means and suppression of material facts.

2. Suppression of Material Facts:
The petitioner failed to disclose the dismissal of earlier writ petitions (W.P. No. 1835 of 1991 and W.A. No. 429 of 1991) when filing subsequent writ petitions (W.P. No. 9008 of 1991 and W.P. Nos. 6503 and 6504 of 1992). The court emphasized the duty of individuals invoking the court's jurisdiction to make a full and true disclosure of all relevant facts, condemning the petitioner for misleading the court.

3. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:
The petitioner invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel, arguing that the lease period should commence from 1990 and end in 1993. Both the single judge and the Division Bench rejected this argument, stating that any prior understanding was superseded by the written lease agreement, which clearly stipulated the lease period from 19th July 1990 to 30th June 1991.

4. Execution of Lease Agreement:
The court noted that the petitioner accepted and executed the lease agreement with full knowledge of its terms, including the lease period. The petitioner's attempt to challenge the lease period after executing the agreement was deemed impermissible.

5. Illicit Quarrying and Violation of Lease Conditions:
The District Collector issued a show cause notice to the petitioner for illicit quarrying and violation of lease conditions. The petitioner was found to have quarried and transported rough stones without valid permits, violating lease conditions 6(4), 6(7), and 10(5). The court upheld the show cause notice and directed the respondents to remove and sell the quarried materials to recover dues.

6. Renewal of Quarry Lease:
The petitioner sought renewal of the quarry lease for a full three-year period. The court, however, noted that the earlier writ petition (W.P. No. 9008 of 1991) directing consideration of renewal was obtained by suppressing material facts. Consequently, the court refused to grant any relief in the present writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 6503 and 6504 of 1992).

7. Conduct of Legal Counsel:
The court expressed strong disapproval of the conduct of the petitioner's counsel, who failed to disclose material facts and assisted in misleading the court. The court emphasized the duty of lawyers to place all relevant matters before the court and condemned the behavior of the petitioner's counsel as reprehensible.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 6503 and 6504 of 1992) with costs of Rs. 5,000, highlighting the petitioner's abuse of the court process and suppression of material facts. The court directed the respondents to remove and sell the quarried materials and recover dues from the petitioner. The judgment serves as a stern reminder of the duty to disclose all relevant facts and the consequences of abusing the court process.