Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Bombay High Court dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, imposing fines of 10000 rupees on the petitioners for contumacious conduct.
The petition was moved by 4 petitioners for quashing the order passed by the Additional Collector. In the proceeding it was pointed out that petitioner 4 was not a resident of India. The petitioner 4 had also not granted any permission to file this present suit. It was also submitted to the court that the petition carried the thumb print of the petitioner 4 while the said petitioner himself had complained to the police where he had signed the complaint. Therefore there was no need for the petitioner 4 for putting his thumb imprint on the petition.
The HC after hearing the proceedings with great concentration decided that there was no legit explanation regarding the petitioner 4 deciding to put a thumb print on the vakalatnama. After hearing the case, the court was of the opinion that the parties had approached the court with clear hands and their intentions seemed to be contumacious as well. The Court said “It is trite that a person seeking equitable relief from the Court, must approach the Court with clean hands. If the Court finds that such a person has not approached the Court with clean hands and has taken resort to means which are highly questionable, not only would be disentitled to any relief from the Court but would also be liable to face such other action as is contemplated in law, more particularly under the Penal Code.”
In view of the above facts, the court dismissed the writ petition, ordering petitioner 1 and 3 to deposit the 10000 rupees with the State Legal Services of Maharashtra in 4 weeks. They were also to be charged under provisions of IPC and CrPC.
Sandra D’souza v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition (ST) No. 32521 of 2017