Charly v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kollam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.17416 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** **CHARLY, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.THANKACHAN, CHARLY BHAVAN, NEELESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS** ## **RESPONDENT:** **THE SECRETARY,** **REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, PIN-691 001.** **SRI K.P. HARISH,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.17416 of 2019** -2- ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is a stage carriage operator with stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-16/C-3220, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to consider Ext.P1 application for temporary permit and grant and issue the same on the route Chirakkara-Kottarakkara, in the vacancy of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-24/4695, which is presently not on road. 2. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this writ petition read thus; “2. It is submitted that petitioner applied for temporary permit on the road Chirakkara-Kottarakkara - in the vacant timing of stage carriage bearing No.KL 24/4695. True copy of the application for temporary permit submitted by the petitioner before the respondent is produced herewith and marked as ## **Exhibit P1** . 3. It is submitted that petitioner is seeking temporary permit in the vacant timing of stage carriage - bearing No.KL 24/4695 and on account of nonoperation of regular service, there is temporary need, warranting for the issuance of temporary permit, under **WP(C).No.17416 of 2019** -3- Section 87(1)(c) of the M.V. Act. Hence there is no legal impediment in granting temporary permit. In the above circumstance, petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application for temporary permit.” (underline supplied) 3. On 26.06.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. 4. On 08.07.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the permit of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-24/4695 referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this writ petition has already been surrendered. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to get instructions and accordingly, the matter was ordered to be listed today for further consideration. 5. Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the permit of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-24/4695 has already been surrendered. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that the **WP(C).No.17416 of 2019** -4- petitioner has filed this writ petition suppressing the fact that the permit of stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-24/4695 has already been surrendered. 7. In **Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India [(2007) 8 SCC 449]** , the Apex Court reiterated that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. Therefore, in exercising extraordinary power, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppress relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. This rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible. 8. In **Prestige Lights' case (supra)** the Apex Court **WP(C).No.17416 of 2019** -5- held further that, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. Paragraphs 33 and 34 of the said judgment read thus: “33. It is thus clear that though the appellantCompany had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the **WP(C).No.17416 of 2019** -6- Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 34. The object underlying the above principle has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in **R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJ KB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)]** , in the following words: "It has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts - facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it - _the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts_ , and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside, any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement." (Emphasis supplied) 9. The conduct of the petitioner in filing this writ petition suppressing material facts, disentitles him from seeking any relief, in exercise of the extraordinary **WP(C).No.17416 of 2019** -7- jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed imposing cost, in view of the law laid down by this Court in **Usha Nanthini M. v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad and another [2018 (2) KHC 89]** and **Devicolam Distilleries Ltd v. State of Kerala and others [2018 (4) KHC 703]** . In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed imposing a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) on the petitioner, which he shall pay to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, an authority constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 providing free legal service to the weaker sections of the society. Such payment shall be made within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In case the petitioner fails to pay the cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five Thousand only) within the time limit specified as above, it would be open to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority to recover the said amount by initiating revenue recovery **WP(C).No.17416 of 2019** -8- proceedings, in terms of G.O.(Ms.)No.107/ 2011/RD dated 26.2.2011, whereby the provisions under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 were made applicable to the recovery of amounts due from any person or class of persons to the said Authority. Registry shall communicate a copy of this order to the Member Secretary, Kerala State Legal Services Authority, Kochi. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** bpr **WP(C).No.17416 of 2019** -9- ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE APPLICATION WITH CHELAN DATED 20.06.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL**