TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firming the contents of the petition to be true to his personal knowledge. By this writ petition the Federation seeks to impugn a new promotion policy decided upon by the State Bank of India (hereinafter called 'the Bank'). In paragraph 9(mm) of the petition it is stated that the petitioners are approaching this Court in great haste as the Bank is moving with great speed and is likely to constitute Departmental Promotion Committees and declare the results of the interviews in implementation of the new promotion policy within the next two or three days. In the affidavit of Umed Singh, referred to earlier, it has been stated in para 4 that the petitioners have not filed any other similar writ petition in this Honourable Court or any other High Court. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Bank, it is stated that the statement in paragraph 4 of the petition in support of the writ petition is false. It is pointed out that the Federation through its Deputy General Secretary had filed Writ Petition No. 5286 of 1989 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad along with an application No. 6969 of 1989, seeking stay of the promotion policy. On 13.4.89 the Andhra Pradesh H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been promoted as a party respondent, it is submitted that firstly it is the promotion policy which had been challenged being arbitrary, discriminatory and framed in gross violation of the prescribed procedure and provisions of law, secondly the petitioners even today do not know the names of all such 58 candidates who have been promoted favoured. (emphasis added) It may be mentioned here that Writ Petition No. 507 of 1989 came up for admission before a Bench of this Court on 26th April, 1989. Apparently, the counsel for the State Bank of India was present and accepted notice on behalf of the bank. The Bench passed the following order: Issue notice, Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the State Bank of India. Counter affidavit shall be filed within four weeks from today. Reply, if any, shall be filed within two weeks thereafter, the matter will be placed for final disposal on 24.10.1989 subject to overnight part-heard. The promotion if given in the meantime will be subject to the decision in the writ petition. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned counsel states that the writ petition which has been filed before the High Court will be withdrawn. The Writ Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ril, 89, seeking stay of promotion of the said respondents. That apart, on 1st May, 89, a fortnightly bulletin issued by the State Bank of India Officers' Association (Mumbai circle), which is admitted to be one of the associations affiliated to the petitioner Federation, carries a message of congratulations to all the 58 officers, who had been promoted w.e.f. 24th April, 89. The names of all the 58 officers so promoted has been set out in this bulletin. In this state of the record, learned counsel for the Bank strongly urges that we should dismiss the writ petition straightaway on the ground that the petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands. We have heard learned counsel on both sides at length. There is no doubt left in our minds that the petitioner has not only suppressed material facts in the petition but has also tried to abuse judicial process. The explanation that the President of the Federation when he filed the writ in this Court on 21st April, 89, was not aware that a petition had been filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court (repeated for a second time in the affidavit of 5th April' 90) is, in our opinion, is totally unacceptable. Admittedly the fede ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d October, 1989) the petitioner federation is not aware of the names of the promoted officers is again an incorrect statement. These officers had been impleaded in the interim application for the relief sought against them in the Karnataka High Court as early as 27.4.89. That apart the federation could not have been unaware of the contents of the bulletin issued by the Mumbai circle of the SBI Officer's Association issued on 1.5.89. There is no doubt that the petitioner did not deliberately implead the 58 promoted officers. Sri Sachhar, for the petitioner, sought to contend that these 58 officers may be proper parties but not necessary parties and he referred us to the judgments of this Court in The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and Another v. A.V.R. Siddhantti and Ors., [1974] 4 S.C.C. 335 and Col. D.D. Joshi Ors. v. Union of India Ors., [1983] 2 S.C.C. 235. We are not here concerned with the question whether these officers were necessary or proper parties and, indeed, this issue is no longer alive as, subsequently, the petitioner itself has undertaken to implead these 58 officers and notices have been issued to them in both the writ petitions. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut proper verification not to speak of dishonest and deliberate misstatements. We, therefore, take this opportunity to record our strong and emphatic disapproval of the conduct of the petitioners in this case and hope that this will be a lesson to the present petitioner as well as to other litigants and that atleast in future people will act more truthfully and with a greater sense of responsibility. The question that now remains to be considered is whether the petition is liable to be dismissed for this conduct of the President of the Federation. Sri Rajendra Sachhar, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, sought to get over the Bank's objections by addressing certain technical arguments. He submitted that even if Writ Petition No. 507/ 89 was liable to be dismissed for mis-statement and suppression there would be no reason to dismiss C.W.P. No. 1260 of 1989 which has been filed by another association of the same officers. He also sought to contend that, since it had been brought to the notice of this Court on 26.4.89 that a petition had been filed in a High Court and that it was being withdrawn, the order passed by this Court on 26.4.89 should be taken as having condoned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
