Paartha Sharathi's Petition Against RBI Quashed; Advised to Seek Remedy Through Appellate Authority
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Paartha Sharathi against the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), citing suppression of material facts and misconduct in court proceedings. The Division Bench, comprising Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, emphasized that a litigant who approaches the court with "dirty hands" cannot seek equitable relief under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
The petitioner, appearing in person, sought to challenge his termination by the RBI and the subsequent eviction from his service quarters. However, the court noted that Sharathi had previously approached the court over similar issues and failed to disclose adverse decisions, including a dismissal by the Supreme Court of India. This non-disclosure was pivotal in the court's decision to dismiss the writ petition.
The court highlighted the availability of alternative remedies under the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. Regulation 48 and 49 provide a right to appeal against orders affecting an employee’s interests and specify the appellate authorities. The court advised Sharathi to pursue these avenues instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction, which is discretionary and equitable in nature.
Additionally, the court addressed complaints regarding the petitioner’s unauthorized occupation of service quarters post-termination. Allegations of unhygienic conditions and disturbances to neighbors were raised, prompting the court to order an inspection of the premises by a lady medical officer and RBI representatives.
During the proceedings, Sharathi was accused of misbehavior and obstructing justice by raising frivolous objections and attempting to delay the process. The court firmly rejected his request for recusal of Justice Kulkarni, dismissing it as an unacceptable contention.
The case has been adjourned to allow the petitioner to comply with court orders concerning the inspection of his service quarters. The RBI has been granted permission to take necessary action if further non-compliance occurs.
Bottom line:-
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed due to suppression of material facts, with the court emphasizing that equitable relief cannot be granted to a litigant approaching with "dirty hands." The petitioner was directed to pursue alternate remedies provided under the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971
