IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27/06/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA
WRIT PETITION.NO.7672 OF 1998
Tamil Nadu State Hand Pump
Fitters Helpers Association
(Reg.No.787/92),
Rep. by the State General Secretary
P. Sundara Sekhar .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by the Secretary to Govt.,
Rural Development (Thi 3)
Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Director of Rural Development,
Jeens Road, Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai 15.
3. The Block Development Officer,
Kadaladi Panchayat Union,
Ramnad District.
4. The Block Development Officer,
R.S. Mangaam Panchayat Union,
Ramnad District.
5. The Block Development Officer,
Mudukulathur Panchayat Union,
Ramnad District.
6. The Block Development Officer,
Bogalur Panchayat Union,
Ramnad District.
7. The Block Development Officer,
Thiruvadanai Panchayat Union,
Ramnad District.
8. The Block Development Officer,
Nainar Koil Panchayat Union,
Ramnad District. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.R. Singaravelan
For Respondents 1-2 : Mrs.N.G. Kalaiselvi
Special Govt. Pleader
Respondents 3-10: Mr.S. Natarajan
:J U D G M E N T
This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Tamil Nadu
State Hand Pump Fitters Helpers Association for quashing the order contained
in Para (ii) relating to Hand Pump repairs and Para III relating to payment of
Coolie for the repairs done by the Hand Pump Fitters Helpers in G.O.Ms.No.84
dated 5.5.1998 and direct the respondents to regularise the service of the
members of the petitioner association with regular scale of pay.
2. It is claimed in the writ petition that the members of the
Association have been serving as Hand Pump Fitters Helpers from the year 1 983
1985 onwards on daily wage basis and such persons should be regularised and
the direction contained in the impugned G.O., should be quashed.
3. Several contentions have been raised in the writ petition
in support of the petitioners case. However, it is unnecessary to deal with
those contentions as the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on a short
ground relating to suppression of material facts.
4. As stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
interveners, before filing of this writ petition, the very same petitioner had
filed W.P.No.5981 of 1997 substantially for the same relief. It appears that
in the said writ petition, prayer had been made for some interim relief which
had not been granted. During pendency of the said writ petition, the present
writ petition has been filed without disclosing about the pendency of the
earlier writ petition. Subsequently it seems that W.P.No,.5981 of 1997 has
been withdrawn without reserving the right to file a fresh writ petition with
the same cause of action.
5. As rightly contended by the counsels for the respondents,
a person who seeks the equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution
must come to the Court with clean hands and there should not be suppression of
any material facts. The filing of the present writ petition, without
disclosing the fact that a similar writ petition had been filed by the very
same petitioner and was pending, would amount to suppression of material
facts. It is apparent that since the interim relief had not been granted in
the earlier case, the petitioner had filed the subsequent writ petition
suppressing about the pendency of earlier writ petition and had moved for
grant of interim relief and had also managed to obtain interim order, which
subsequently appears to have been vacated. Be that as it may, there has
been deliberate suppression of material facts dis-entitling the petitioner to
seek for any relief in the present writ petition.
6. Moreover, the earlier writ petition for the similar relief
has been subsequently withdrawn without indicating about the filing of the
subsequent writ petition or obtaining leave to file a fresh writ petition on
the similar grounds or to pursue the present writ petition.
7. As has been observed by the Supreme Court in A.I.R.
1987(1) SC 2 8 (SARGUJA TRANSPORT SERVICE v. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL M.P., GWALIOR & OTHERS), if earlier writ petition is withdrawn
without obtaining permission from the court to file fresh writ petition on the
same ground, the subsequent writ petition would not be maintainable. The
position would not improve, if without disclosing about the pendency of the
earlier writ petition the very same petitioner files a separate writ petition
and thereafter withdraws the earlier writ petition without reserving any such
right.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, without going into the
questions raised by the petitioner, I deem it proper to dismiss the writ
petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
dpk
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by the Secretary to Govt.,
Rural Development (Thi 3)
Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Director of Rural Development,
Jeens Road, Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai 15.
3. The Block Development Officer,
Kadaladi Panchayat Union,
Ramnad District.
4. The Block Development Officer,
R.S. Mangaam Panchayat Union,
Ramnad District.
5. The Block Development Officer,
Mudukulathur Panchayat Union,
Ramnad District.
6. The Block Development Officer,
Bogalur Panchayat Union,
Ramnad District.
7. The Block Development Officer,
Thiruvadanai Panchayat Union,
Ramnad District.
8. The Block Development Officer,
Nainar Koil Panchayat Union,
Ramnad District.