Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Over False Claims, Imposes Rs. 1 Lakh Costs

Petitioners' Suppression of Facts and False Statements Lead to Dismissal and Costs for Misuse of Judicial Process

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court, under the bench of Justice Amit Borkar, dismissed the writ petitions filed by Ramrao Tukaram Patil and others against the State of Maharashtra and others, primarily due to the petitioners' suppression of facts and false statements. The court's decision was anchored in the realm of writ jurisdiction and underscored the discretionary and equitable nature of such jurisdiction, emphasizing the necessity for litigants to approach the court with honesty and transparency.

The petitioners had challenged the rejection of their application for condonation of delay in filing a revision against an auction sale. They falsely claimed a lack of knowledge about the auction sale until November 2020, despite evidence indicating their awareness as early as 2011 and 2015. The court found that such suppression of facts and false declarations strike at the root of justice, making the petitioners ineligible for relief under writ jurisdiction.

Justice Borkar highlighted the increasing trend of litigants approaching courts with incomplete facts or falsehoods, which undermines the dignity of judicial proceedings and erodes public confidence in the justice delivery system. The court emphasized that it cannot act on statements that are proven untrue by the litigants' own records.

In a stern message against the misuse of judicial processes, the court imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the petitioners, to be deposited with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. The costs were intended not as a punishment, but as compensation for the hardship caused to the respondents and as a deterrent against future misuse of judicial time and resources.

The judgment also referenced several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Amar Singh v. Union of India, reinforcing the principle that writ jurisdiction is not to be used by those attempting to mislead the court. The court reiterated that a litigant must approach with clean hands, clear facts, and honest disclosure, failing which the court is justified in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction.

This decision serves as a reminder of the court's role in upholding justice and the responsibility of litigants to engage with the judicial system in good faith and with integrity.

Bottom Line:

Writ Jurisdiction - Suppression of facts and false statements made by petitioners renders them ineligible for relief under writ jurisdiction - Imposition of costs for misuse of judicial process.

Statutory provision(s): Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961

Ramrao Tukaram Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2808554