2019 (1) TMI 2050 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction to issue SCN - Challenge to notice whereby the Respondent No.2 Competent Authority directed the Petitioners to vacate the premises within 48 hours, failing which they would be evicted on 28.1.2019 - Ground of challenge in the appeal before the Additional Collector as well as in the present petition is that the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice in view of the circular dated 3.4.2018 issued by the State of Maharashtra. HELD THAT - The impugned notice was issued only after the challenge to the eviction order was rejected and the order of eviction had attained finality. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioners have challenged the notice without disclosing these material facts viz. issuance of show cause notice or passing of eviction order as well as dismissal of appeal and revision by the concerned authority either in the appeal before the Collector or in the present petition. The Petitioners have filed the petition alleging that the action proposed by impugned order/notice is contrary to the circular dated 3.4.2018. A writ remedy being equitable one, the person invoking writ jurisdiction has to come with clean hands. In the instant case the Petitioners having approached the Court with unclean hands are not entitled for any equitable relief. The conduct of the Petitioners needs to be deprecated. The Petitioners need to be reminded that the court proceedings are sacrosanct and cannot be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous and dishonest litigants. Such unscrupulous and dishonest litigation and attempt to abuse the legal process can only be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,00,000/ . The costs shall be deposited in the registry of this court within a period of two months from the date of the order.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notice directing eviction based on jurisdiction of Competent Authority and validity of circular dated 3.4.2018, suppression of material facts leading to obtaining ad-interim relief, abuse of legal process, entitlement to equitable relief, imposition of exemplary costs.

Analysis:
The petitioners moved the court urgently during a holiday, alleging that slum structures were being demolished pending appeal, as the Appellate Authority had refused to grant a stay. Ad-interim relief was granted to maintain status-quo. Respondent No.4 later claimed that relief was obtained by suppressing facts, leading to a hearing on the matter. The petition challenged a notice directing eviction within 48 hours, citing lack of jurisdiction by the Competent Authority due to a circular issued by the State of Maharashtra.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the petitioners had received a show cause notice in 2016 under relevant sections, leading to an eviction order in 2016, which was upheld in subsequent appeals. The impugned notice was issued after the finality of the eviction order, which the petitioners failed to disclose. The petitioners alleged the notice contradicted the circular dated 3.4.2018, while the respondent argued that newer circulars had superseded it, accusing the petitioners of misleading the court.

The court emphasized the importance of clean hands in seeking writ remedies, criticizing the petitioners for approaching the court with unclean hands and abusing the legal process. Due to this conduct, the petitioners were denied equitable relief, and exemplary costs of Rs.2,00,000 were imposed. The petition was dismissed, with directions to deposit the costs within two months, failing which costs would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The court aimed to discourage unscrupulous and dishonest litigation by imposing such costs.

In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the petition due to the petitioners' failure to disclose material facts, abuse of legal process, and lack of clean hands, imposing significant costs as a deterrent against such behavior in legal proceedings.