Malappuram Jilla Goods Transport Workers Union (CITU) Kondotty Sector v. Abdul Rahiman Haji, C.P. Mammed Moyan Riyaz Manzil, Circle Inspector of Police Kondotty, Regional Transport Officer Malappuram, Kondotty Municipality, and Autorickshaw Drivers Unions (CITU/INTUC/STU) Kondotty

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** **RP.No.898 OF 2018 IN WP(C). 4404/2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.02.2018 IN W.P.(C).NO.4404/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** ## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/3RD PARTIES:** **1 MALAPPURAM JILLA GOODS TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION (CITU) KONDOTTY SECTOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SASI P.T, S/O. AYYAPPUNNI, 42 YEARS, PALLIKKATHODI VEEDU, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2 GOOD DRIVERS UNION (INTUC) KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY K.KUNHUNNI, S/O.BICHAGAN, AGED 44 YEARS, VEETTILCHALIL HOUSE, MUTHHUPARAMBU P.O., PARATHAKADU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **3 GOODS THOZHILALI UNION (STU) KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ABDUL LATHEEF.M., S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 47 YEARS, PALLIYALI HOUSE, KODANGAD, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SMT.ANJALI NAIR** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS IN THE WP(C):** **1 CHAKKIPARAMBAN ABDUL RAHIMAN HAJI AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. KUNJAHAMMED HAJI, C.P MANZIL, CHENGANI P.O, KONDOTTY WEST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673638.** **2 C.P.MAMMED MOYAN RIYAZ MANZIL, BY-PASS ROAD, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 638.** - **3 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 638.** R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 2 - **4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 605.** - **5 KONDOTTY MUNICIPLAITY KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 638.** - **6 AUTORIKSHAW DRIVERS UNION(CITU) KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 638, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **7 AUTORIKSHAW DRIVERS UNION (INTUC) KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 638, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **8 AUTORIKSHAW DRIVERS UNION(STU) KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 638, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **R1&R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN R1&R2 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN.H. R3 & R4 BY ADV.SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GOVT PLEADER R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 3 ## **ORDER** The petitioners, who are third parties to W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018, have filed this review petition under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 23.02.2018 in W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018, whereby that writ petition was disposed of, directing the Circle Inspector of Police, Kondotty, the 3[rd] respondent herein, to consider and take an appropriate decision on Ext.P21 complaint dated 20.12.2017 made by the writ petitioners, respondents 1 and 2 herein, with notice to them, the 5[th] respondent Municipality and also to respondents 6 to 8 autorickshaw driver's unions, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment. In the judgment, it was made clear that, this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the complaint made by the writ petitioners in Ext.P21 and that, it is for the 3[rd] respondent to take an appropriate decision on Ext.P21, strictly in accordance with law. The grievance of the writ petitioner, highlighted in Ext.P21 complaint, was against unauthorised parking of goods vehicles in front of their shopping complexes. R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 4 2. On 18.02.2019, when this review petition came up for consideration, learned counsel on both sides pointed out the pendency of R.P.No.949 of 2018, arising out of Ext.R1(J) judgment of this Court dated 12.03.2018 in W.P.(C)No.5680 of 2018. 3. Today, when this case is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the review petitioners handed over a copy of the order of this Court dated dated 19.03.2019 in R.P.No.949 of 2018, whereby that review petition was allowed, recalling the judgment dated 12.03.2018 in W.P.(C)No.5680 of 2018. That writ petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein, seeking a direction to the Circle Inspector of Police, Kondotty to consider and take immediate follow up action on Ext.P11 complaint dated 15.02.2018 filed against the blockade created in front of their shopping complexes by the unions representing the drivers of goods vehicles. In the order in R.P.No.949 of 2018, this Court noticed the attempt made by the writ petitioners in prosecuting two writ petitions, i.e., W.P. (C)Nos.4404 of 2018 and 5680 of 2018, simultaneously. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 5 the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/writ petitioners in W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 3 and 4, and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 5[th] respondent Municipality. 5. On 07.02.2018, respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioners) filed W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Circle Inspector of Police, Kondotty to consider and take action on Ext.P21 complaint dated 20.12.2017 filed against unauthorised parking of goods vehicles in front of their shopping complexes. They have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the Circle Inspector of Police, Kondotty; the Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram; and Kondotty Municipality to take action as provided under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to determine suitable parking place for goods vehicles in Kodotty Municipality, following the law laid down by this Court in **Rose Lynd E.T. and another v. Lekha @ Krishnakumar and others [2008 (4) KHC 184]** . 6. On 08.02.2018, when W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018 came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 6 notice on admission for the official respondents and urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to others. On 23.02.2018, when that writ petition was taken up for consideration, despite service of notice, none appeared for respondents 4 to 6 autorickshaw drivers unions. By the judgment dated 23.02.2018, which is sought to be reviewed in this review petition, W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018 was disposed of, by directing the Circle Inspector of Police, Kondotty to consider and take an appropriate decision on Ext.P21 complaint, with notice to the writ petitioners, Kondotty Municipality and also respondents 4 to 6 autorickshaw driver's unions, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment. In the said judgment, it was made it clear that, this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of Ext.P21 complaint made by the writ petitioners and it is for the Circle Inspector of Police to take an appropriate decision, strictly in accordance with law. 7. On 19.02.2018, during the pendency of W.P. (C)No.4404 of 2018, the writ petitioners filed another writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.5680 of 2018, seeking a writ of R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 7 mandamus commanding the Circle Inspector of Police, Kondotty to consider and take immediate follow up action on Ext.P11 complaint dated 15.02.2018 made by them against the blockade created in front of their shopping complexes by respondents 3 to 5 unions representing the drivers of goods vehicles. The writ petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the Circle Inspector of Police to ensure law and order in the area, in order to prevent any untoward incident from those drivers unions. 8. The writ petitioners filed W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018 before his Court on 07.02.2018. The 'subject' of the writ petition shown on the docket of the said writ petition reads thus; “ - **MISCELLANEOUS** Seeking early consideration of Ext.P20 complaint filed before the 1[st] respondent against the unauthorised parking of goods vehicle by the members of respondents 4 to 6 unions in front of the shopping complexes owned by the petitioners on Kondotty Bypass main road.” In the said writ petition, Autorickshaw Drivers Union (CITU), Kondotty, represented by its Secretary; Autorickshaw Drivers Union (INTUC), Kondotty, represented by its Secretary; and R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 8 Autorickshaw Drivers Union (STU), Kondotty, represented by its Secretary are arrayed as respondents 4 to 6. 9. The writ petitioners filed W.P.(C)No.5680 of 2018 before this Court on 19.02.2018, through the very same counsel. The 'subject' of the writ petition shown on the docket of the said writ petition reads thus; “ **CRIMINAL MATTER** – Aggrieved by the delay in considering Ext.P11 complaint made before the 1[st] respondent and also requesting the 1[st] respondent for maintaining law and order against the threat made by the members of respondents 3 to 5 unions against the petitioners.” In that writ petition, Goods Vehicle Drivers Union (CITU), Kondotty, represented by its Secretary; Goods Vehicle Drivers Union (INTUC), Kondotty, represented by its Secretary; and Goods Vehicle Drivers Union (STU), Kondotty, represented by its Secretary are arrayed as respondents 3 to 5. 10. On 12.03.2018, by Ext.R1(j) judgment, this Court disposed of the W.P.(C)No.5680 of 2018, based on the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Kondotty Municipality that the area in dispute is not earmarked for parking of goods vehicles. In Ext.R1(j) judgment this Court held R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 9 that, if the area in dispute is not earmarked for parking of goods vehicles, the drivers of goods vehicles have no right to occupy that premises for parking their vehicles. Therefore, this Court directed the Circle Inspector of Police, Kondotty to ensure that the drivers of goods vehicles do not unauthorisedly occupy public premises, violating the rights of others, and to take appropriate action on Ext.P11 complaint, immediately. 11. On 23.02.2018, when W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018 came up for consideration, the filing of the subsequent writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.5680 of 2018 on 19.02.2018 and its disposal by another Bench of this Court by Ext.R1(j) judgment dated 12.03.2018 were suppressed from the notice of this Court. Without noticing the said fact, this Court by judgment dated 23.02.2018, disposed of W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018 by directing the Circle Inspector of Police, Kondotty to consider and take an appropriate decision on Ext.P21 complaint, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the writ petitioners, Kondotty Municipality and also respondents 4 to 6 the autorickshaw driver's unions, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment. R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 10 12. On 04.09.2018, Malappuram Jilla Goods Transport Workers Union (CITU), Kondotty, represented by its Secretary Sasi P.T.; Goods Drivers Union (INTUC), Kondotty, represented by its Secretary Kunjuhni; and Goods Thozhilali Union (STU), Kondotty, represented by its Secretary Abdul Latheef have filed this review petition, along with an application for leave, seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 23.02.2018 in W.P. (C)No.4404 of 2018, pointing out that the writ petitioners obtained the said judgment behind the back of the review petitions, who are the affected parties, and suppressing from the notice of this Court the filing of the subsequent writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.5680 of 2018 and its disposal by another Bench of this Court by Ext.R1(j) judgment dated 12.03.2018. 13. During the pendency of this review petition, the review petitioners filed R.P.No.949 of 2018, seeking review of Ext.R1(j) judgment of this Court dated 12.03.2018 in W.P. (C)No.5680 of 2018. By the order dated 19.03.2019 in R.P.No.949 of 2018, this Court allowed the said review petition and recalled the judgment dated 12.03.2018 in W.P.(C)No.5680 R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 11 ## of 2018. Paragraph 9 and also the last paragraph of the said order reads thus; “9. Having considered the submissions, it is obvious that the orders passed by this Court earlier in related matters were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petition, the judgment of which is sought to be reviewed. The opportunity granted to the review petitioners by this Court in W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018 to have a fair hearing was taken away in the subsequent judgment. I have no doubt that the review petitioners have substantial contentions to advance in this matter. The writ petition requires to be heard afresh. The review petitioners may file appropriate application to get themselves impleaded. Accordingly, I allow this review petition and recall the judgment dated 12.03.2018 in W.P.(C)No.5680 of 2018.” 14. Later, by the judgment dated 25.07.2019, this Court dismissed W.P.(C)No.5680 of 2018 and in the said judgment, this Court deprecated severely the action of the writ petitioners in not disclosing the pendency of that writ petition, before the Bench which considered W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018. Paragraphs 5 and 6 and also the last paragraph of the said judgment read thus; “5. There cannot be any doubt that the petitioners have not been fair to this Court. When this writ petition was R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 12 filed, W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018 was pending before this Court and it is evident from the judgment dated 23.02.2018 that the pendency of this petition was not disclosed to the learned Single Judge, who considered the said petition. The above action deserves a severe deprecation. 6. I also find that this Court by judgment dated 23.02.2018 had directed the 1[st] respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners and take appropriate decision thereon, with notice to the affected parties, including the auto-rickshaw drivers' union and the Kondotty Municipality. It was further ordered that appropriate decision on its merits shall be taken within a period of four weeks. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the said direction has been complied with. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to allow the prayer sought for by the petitioner. This petition will stand dismissed.” 15. As stated by Scrutton, L.J., in **R. v. Kensington** **Income Tax Commissioners [1917 (1) KB 486]** , an applicant who does not come with candid facts and 'clean breast' cannot hold a writ of the court with 'soiled hands'. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 13 ## 16. 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 suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The 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. 17. In **Prestige Lights Limited** the Apex Court 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 R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 14 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 appellant Company 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 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 R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 15 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) 18. In **K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.** **[(2008) 12 SCC 481]** the Apex Court held that the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play 'hide and seek' or to 'pick and choose' the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 16 and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because, "the Court knows law but not facts". In the said decision, the Apex Court held further that, if the primary object as highlighted in **R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 KB 486]** is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and 'clean breast' cannot hold a writ of the Court with 'soiled hands'. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 17 duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for Contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. 19. In **Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana [(1995) 3 SCC 757]** the Apex Court held that filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by any one resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a Court of Law. The relevant portion of paragraph 38 of the said verdict reads as follows : “38. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (for short the Act) defines criminal contempt as the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or visible representation or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever to (1) scandalise or tend to candalise or lower or tend to lower the authority of any Court; (2) prejudice or interfere or interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings; or (3) Interfere or tend to interfere with, or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 18 justice in any other manner. Thus, any conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceeding amounts to the commission of criminal contempt. The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceeding not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any Court of law exposes the intention of the concerned party in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence commits criminal contempt of the Court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in Courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by any one resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evident in a Court of law. The stream of justice has to be kept R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 19 clean and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that the message percolates loud and clear that no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the Court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice. In **Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [(1995) 1 SCC 421 : 1994 AIR SCW 4994]** the respondents produced a false and fabricated certificate to defeat the claim of the respondent for transfer of a case. This action was found to be an act amounting to interference with the administration of justice. Brother Hansaria, J. speaking for the Bench observed: (at p.4995, of AIR) “the stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of Court's atmosphere may give vitaility to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of Court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceeding; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 20 system of administration of justice.” 20. Therefore, it is well settled that, a litigant who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must come with clean hands and clean objects. The judicial proceedings are sacrosanct, and no person would be allowed to abuse the judicial process, particularly, in public law remedy. In writ proceedings, the Court places implicit faith on the parties and their pleadings, as it does not indulge in any fact finding or roving enquiry of what has been asserted. Since Article 226 of the Constitution of India espouses equity jurisprudence, a litigant who has approached the Court with unclean hands, without disclosing full facts, is not entitled for any reliefs. 21. In the instant case, for reasons best known to the writ petitioners, they have filed W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018 without impleading the review petitioners, i.e., Malappuram Jilla Goods Transport Workers Union (CITU), Kondotty; Goods Drivers Union (INTUC), Kondotty; and Goods Thozhilali Union (STU), Kondotty, as respondents in that writ petition. Instead, Autorickshaw Drivers Union (CITU), Kondotty; Autorickshaw Drivers Union (INTUC), Kondotty; and Autorickshaw Drivers R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 21 Union (STU), Kondotty, are arrayed as respondents 4 to 6 in W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018 filed on 07.02.2018. In W.P.(C)No.5680 of 2018 filed on 19.08.2018, through the very same lawyer, Goods Vehicle Drivers Union (CITU), Kondotty, represented by its Secretary; Goods Vehicle Drivers Union (INTUC), Kondotty, represented by its Secretary; and Goods Vehicle Drivers Union (STU), Kondotty, represented by its Secretary are arrayed as respondents 3 to 5. 22. The writ petitioners will have to offer their explanation in filing two writ petitioners before this Court on the very same 'subject', showing different subjects on the docket, i.e., 'Miscellaneous' and 'Criminal', arraying different sets of drivers/workers unions as respondents, and without impleading the affected parties, i.e., the review petitioners. The identity of the persons, who received notice as the office bearers of different sets of drivers/workers unions arrayed as respondents 4 to 6 in W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018 and respondents 3 to 5 in W.P.(C)No.5680 of 2018 has to be enquired into, if found necessary, by an appropriate agency. 23. As held by the Apex Court in **Dnyandeo Sabaji** R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 22 **Naik** a litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth. 24. Since the writ petitioners, respondents 1 and 2 herein, have obtained the judgment dated 23.02.2018 in W.P. (C)No.4404 of 2018 behind the back of the review petitions, who are the affected parties, and suppressing from the notice of this Court the filing of the subsequent writ petition, i.e., W.P. (C)No.5680 of 2018 and its disposal by Ext.R1(j) judgment dated 12.03.2018, this Court deem it necessary to recall the said judgment dated 23.02.2018. 25. In the result, this review petition is allowed by recalling the judgment dated 23.02.2018 in W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018 and imposing a cost of Rs.75,000/- on respondents 1 and 2/writ petitioners, payable to the review petitioners (Rs.25,000/- each), within one month from the date of receipt R.P.No.898/18 in W.P.(C)No.4404/18 23 of a certified copy of this judgment. 26. The review petitioners are suo motu impleaded as additional respondents 7 to 9 in W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018. They shall enter appearance in W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018, through counsel. The original notice returned after service of notice on the drivers/workers unions arrayed as respondents 4 to 6 in W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018 and respondents 3 to 5 in W.P. (C)No.5680 of 2018 shall be kept in safe custody by Registrar (Judicial), after keeping attested copy of the same in the Judges papers in W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018. Registry to list W.P.(C)No.4404 of 2018 before the Bench, as per roster, along with the judges papers in this review petition and also the judges papers in W.P.(C)No.5680 of 2018. **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN** JV **JUDGE**