9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted thereafter including the bank certificates of the writ petitioners, namely, Ranjit Kumar Maity, already submitted in terms of the particulars mentioned in the application submitted on 1 June, 2005. The order dated 15 June, 2009 was corrected by an order dated 25 June, 2009. The said correction was informal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appeal was preferred by Annadata Distributor. The application of the appellant for leave to intervene was allowed on 16 September, 2009 after condoning delay and granting leave to the appellant to prefer the appeal. The principal grievance of the appellant in this writ petition may be summarized in the manner following. Initially several writ petitions were filed namely, WP No. 1712 of 2006, WP No. 15788 (W) of 2008, WP No. 18154 (W) of 2005 and WP No. 20695 (W) of 2005 challenging the recruitment process initiated by the District Controller, Food Supplies, Purba Midnapore by issuing a notice dated 25 April, 2005 inviting applications for appointment of a M.R Distributor in Bhupatinagar of the District Purba Midnapore. The WP No. 15788 (W) of 2005 was moved by the present appellant namely, Annadata directing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them in their applications submitted on or before 1 June, 2005 . Ranjit Kumar Maity and three others filed a writ application being WP No. 1095 of 2007 challenging the notice issued on 6 September, 2007 by the District Controller, Food Supplies, Purba Midnapore inviting applications for filling up a resultant/new vacancy of a M.R Distributor on Bhupatinagar under Kontai Sub-Division in the District of Purba Midnapore. The said notice was preceded by an order dated 31 August, 2007 passed by the Directorate of District Distribution, Procurement and Supply in terms of the order dated 14 June, 2007. The said order reveals that enquiries were made in respect of several applicants including the present appellant. It had also taken note of an order dated 10 July, 2007 passed in WP No. 860 of 2007 which is a writ petition filed by the Ranjit Kumar Maity, and it appears that the financial solvency of Ranjit Kumar Maity was not accepted by the said directorate. The said order dated 31 August, 2007 has been the subject-matter of challenge in several writ petitions including WP No. 1095 of 2007 in which the order under appeal was passed. The appellant on the basis of the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order and sought for compliance thereof could not challenge the order. The order under appeal had attained its finality and hence no appeal should be entertained. The respondents placed reliance on the judgement reported in AIR 2010 SC 112 (paragraph 93). On the question of suppression it was argued that since leave to appeal was obtained by suppressing the material facts, the Hon'ble Court could dismiss the appeal and vacate the interim order dated 16 September, 2009. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment reported in AIR 1981 SC 707 (paragraph 6). For better appreciation of the said judgment and the argument made on behalf of the appellant, it is useful to reproduce some of the paragraphs mentioned in the said letter dated 4 September, 2009. 3. It is pertinent to mention herein that on June 15, 2009, the W.P No. 1095 of 2009 has been disposed of by directing the Principal Secretary or Joint Secretary, Food to take a decision in the matter afresh by considering the merits of the applications whoever have filed their respective application for M.R distributorship at Bhupatinagar on or before 1 June, 2005 within six weeks from the date of communication of ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when leave to appeal was obtained, it was not brought to our notice that, in fact, the appellants had sought for compliance of the impugned order by the letter dated 4 September, 2009. If that would have been the case then we would not have granted such leave at all. A litigant who comes to Court and invokes its jurisdiction with clean hands. It is a fundamental requirement of law that litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings and especially when it contains a prayer for injunction. A litigant is required to make frank disclosure of all facts so as to enable the Court to decide on the basis of the entire material disclosed and not to secrete any information. A proceeding initiated without full disclosure of facts is liable to be dismissed. In this case, we are of the view that the appellant did not make a full disclosure of all the material facts and as observed by us, it was incumbent for the appellant to refer to the said letter dated 4 September, 2009. As early as in 1917, the Court of appeal in R.V Kensington Income Tax Commr., exp Princess de Polignac K.B Scrutton, L.J commonly known as Russian Princes case (reported in 1917 (1) KB 486 (CA) upho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not. Since the State has to take a conscious decision and that has to be done subjectively as well as objectively, the same would not be possible unless the entire record is available with the authority considering such report. In absence of the entire enquiry report or the record being made available to the State Government, the said authority would not be in a position to consider the report which is based on the enquiry report and other materials and accordingly we feel that the learned single Judge was justified in quashing the notice dated 6 September, 2007. Since the entire record was not available, we think that the learned single Judge was absolutely correct in holding that such approval was done mechanically. The learned single Judge did take into consideration the earlier order dated 14 June, 2007 as would be reflected in the order itself. The subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition was the order dated 31 August, 2007 and the impugned notice dated 6 September, 2007 issued as a consequence to such order. The same is a subsequent fact and we are unable to appreciate as to how the learned Judge has acted contrary to any direction passed on 14 June, 2007. In fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
