TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1074X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the acquired land or refund the compensation, and January, 2006, when exchange of correspondence again started. The High Court would have also taken note of the fact that while the appellant was sleeping over its rights, the Municipal Corporation had sanctioned Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, the Cooperative Society formed by the slum dwellers had entered into development agreement with respondent No.5 and the latter had constructed buildings and handed over 600 units to the slum dwellers for permanent residence and dismissed the writ petition by applying the ratio of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai 1964 (1) TMI 33 - Supreme Court Hence, Apex court do not find any justification for entertaining the prayer for issue of a mandamus at this belated stage by ignoring the developments which have taken place in the intervening period. In the result, the appeal is dismissed as barred by time and also on merits. - G. S. Singhvi And V. Gopala Gowda, JJ. JUDGMENT G. S. Singhvi, 1. Leave granted. 2. Feeling dissatisfied with order dated 30.7.2010 read with order dated 13.8.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Bom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbai-400 028, No. PELA-1-166/98-99 Date: 23/6/98 To, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Old Custom House, 1st floor, Fort, Mumbai Sub: Acquisition of Plot No. 1087 and 1088 in TPS-IV of Mahim, Prabhadevi. Sir, Award for the above plot No. 1087 and 1088 declared on 1.6.1979 and 31.3.1982 respectively. Accordingly, this department paid compensation amount of ₹ 14,14,282/- on 26.7.79 and ₹ 13,29,897/- on 30.3.82 totaling to ₹ 27.65 lakhs including establishment charges. Inspite of voluminous correspondences and frequent visuals and meetings with you to get the vacant possession of the plots, the plot is not yet made over to MTNL. At present plot is fully encroached and you are not in a position to give vacant possession of the said plots. It is once again requested to hand over the vacant possession within three months, failing which you are requested to refund the compensation paid by us with interest. Sd/- Dy. General Manager (Plg.) MTNL, Mumbai (underlining is ours) 5. For the next about 8 years the officers of Bombay Telephones, Posts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t order was recalled on 13.8.2010 and was substituted with the impugned order, the relevant portions of which are extracted below: In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited has prayed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.2 to 4 to hand over vacant possession of the land admeasuring 5723.10 sq. metres situated at Mahim bearing FP No.1088 TPS-IV. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.5, in whose favour the slum development authority has sanctioned the slum rehabilitation scheme in question, states that as per the order dated 8th August, 2008 of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the built up area admeasuring 1706 sq, metres is allotted under Item No.10 to MTNL. The said built up area will be handed over to the Appropriate Authority free of costs. It is stated that since the Post and Telegraph Department of the Union of India is not a party to this proceeding, respondent No.1 may not be held liable if the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited is given the above built up area free of costs. 3. Since the Slum Development Authority itself has indicated in the scheme itself, that the built up area admeasuring 170 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Solicitors, N. M. Wadia Buildings, 123 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Mumbai -400 001. Sub:- High Court Mumbai, O.O.C.J Writ Petition No. 1517 of 2010 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra Ors. . ..Respondents Dear Sir, We are concerned for MTNL in the above matter. You have represented Respondents No. 5, i.e. M/s. Shree Ahuja Properties in the above matter. The above Petition is disposed of vide an order dt. 30th July, 2010 and subsequent order dt. 13th August, 2010 by their Lordships Mr. Chief Justice and Mr. Justice S. C. Dharmadhikari. Your clients are aware that as per an order dt. 8 August, 2008 of slum Rehabilitation Authority, MTNL is entitled to 1706 sq. mtr. Built up area free of cost. We are instructed by our clients to inform your clients that the separate building of the said 1706 sq. mtr. Built up area be constructed by your clients with separate gate / Entrance as per the specification to be given by our clients. It is therefore necessary to execute separate MOU for the said purpose. Your clients be informed accordingly and let our clients know the spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Date: 02/02/2011 To, M/S. Shree Ahuja Constructions, 3rd flr., V.N. SPHERE, 199, Linking Road Opp. Shoppers Stop Bandra (W), Mumbai-40005 Sub: High Court Mumbai O.O.C.J., W.P. No.1517/2010 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. .. Petitioner V/S State of Maharashtra Ors. .. Respondents Dear Sir, With reference to the above subject, as per an order no. SRA/Eng/940/GS/ML STG/LOI dtd. 8th August 2008 of SRA, MTNL is entitled to 1706 sq. mtrs. built up area free of cost. Nothing is heard from you after the Honourable High Courts judgement dtd. 13th August 2010. It is to inform you that a separate building is to be constructed with separate gate/entrance as per the specifications to be given by MTNL. It is therefore necessary to execute a separate MOU for he said purpose. You are hereby requested to intimate the time limit during which the said construction work will be completed handed over to MTNL. MTNL, Mumbai Deputy General Manager (Planning) desires to have a meeting with you regarding the above issue. Please fix a convenient day time for the meeting at an earliest. Thanking you, Sd/- Asst. General Manager (Plg.) MT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, Opp. Shoppers Stop, Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400 050 Sub: Proposed building for MTNL, plan and layout. Ref: Compliance of Condition No. 23 of LOI Sir, With reference to your letter dated 14/09/2011, it is brought to kind notice that in compliance of Condition No.23 of Letter of Intent No.SRA/ENG/1940/GS/ML STOL/LOI dated 8/08/2008, it was required that the planning and specification for the said buildable reservation shall be obtained from us.However, the building plan and layout proposed by you indicates that the proposed building for MTN is sandwiched between SRA and saleable building. The building is not suitable with regard to its size mentioned, apart from the other difficulties such as separate building compound, a good and proper access for the members of public to proposed MTNL building. Thus the proposed dimensions in the layout building is not acceptable to us.In view of the above, kindly re-examine the case and submit your proper proposal to have easy access, prominence and a good ands usable layout for the proposed MTNL building. Sd/- Sr. Manager (LA) MTNL, Mumbai 11. After having virtually agreed to take 1706 sq. mtrs. built up area free of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditional Solicitor General becoming aware of order dated 13.8.2010 from the file summoned on 7.11.2011 is clearly an afterthought and a patently incorrect statement has been made to persuade this Court to entertain the special leave petition by condoning the unexplained delay of more than one year. Shri Rohatgi also invited the Court s attention to paragraph 5(vii) of the rejoinder filed by the appellant to the counter affidavit of respondent No.5 to show that as early as in February, 2011 officers of the appellant became aware about the order passed by the High Court. Shri Rohatgi submitted that the conduct of the appellant in seeking the intervention of the Court with unclean hands is sufficient for non-suiting it. In support of his submissions, Shri Rohatgi relied upon the judgments of this Court in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114, Oswal Fats and Oils Ltd. v. Commr. (Admn.) (2010) 4 SCC 728 and Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563 and order dated 16.2.2012 passed in IA Nos.3-5 in SLP(C) No.4810/2012. 13. Shri P.P. Rao, Shri Gopal Subramanium and Dr.A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for other respondents supported Shri Rohat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of SLP (C) No.22747/2010 filed by three occupants of the tenement No.591, 593 and 592 in respect of adjoining plot No.FP No. 1087 TPS IV Mahim, Mumbai, before this Hon'ble Court. While defending the said SLP, the Ld. ASG, called for the file from the Legal Cell pertaining to the impugned order in the present case relating to plot No. 1088 on 7.11.2011. On perusing the file the Ld. ASG became aware of the order dated 13.08.2010 passed in respect of plot no. 1088 in WP No. 1517/2010 and sought the comments from the Ministry regarding order dated 13.08.2010. On this the petitioner came to know about the order dated 13.08.2010 and it was advised to the petitioner to take appropriate steps for challenging the order dated 13.8.2010 in Writ petition No. 1517/2010. It is also relevant to note that the Ministry of Environment and Forest and the Ministry of Communication Information Technology had vehemently defended SLP (C) 22747/2010 before this Hon'ble Court and had vehemently opposed the action of the State Govt, of Maharashtra in taking away the land bearing plot no. 1087 and 1088 under the 'Slum Rehabilitation Scheme', which belongs to the petitioner and was acquired ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t No.5. Any person of ordinary prudence is entitled to assume that she must have done so under the instructions of the concerned officers. The three officers who exchanged letters with respondent No.5 were Class-I Officers of the appellant. They must have written to respondent No.5 on the basis of instructions given by the higher officers. Therefore, the mere fact that the file notings do not contain a corresponding entry cannot lead to an inference that the senior management of the appellant was not aware of the High Court s order. If Ms. S.I. Shah and three officers of the appellant had exceeded their brief and unauthorisedly exchanged communications with respondent No.5 and its Advocate, then the senior officers of the appellant would have certainly taken action against them. However, it is neither the pleaded case of the appellant nor it has been suggested that Ms. S.I. Shah and three officers had acted unauthorisedly. The averments contained in paragraph 5(vii) of the rejoinder filed by the appellant to the counter of respondent No.5 clearly shows that as early as in February, 2011, the officers of the appellant knew that the High Court had disposed of the writ petition by dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made in the appeal before the High Court. That may be so, but the fact still remains that two important statements which, if true, may have been considerable assistance to the appellant in invoking the protection of Section 13(1)(a) even on the construction placed by the High Court on that section are found to be untrue, and that, in our opinion, is a very serious infirmity in the petition itself. It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. (emphasis added) 19. In Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), this Court considered the question whether relief should be denied to the appellant who did not state correct facts in the application filed before the Prescribed Authority and who did not approach the High Court with clean hands. Af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , then there would have been no occasion for the High Court or this Court to entertain the writ petition or the special leave petition. 20. It is settled law that a person who approaches the court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. In other words, he owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and refrain from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. If he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person. (emphasis supplied) 21. By applying the ratio of the above noted judgments to the facts of this case, we hold that the appellant is guilty of not coming to this Court with clean hands and the explanation given by it for 401 days delay has to be treated as wholly unsatisfactory and the prayer for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected. 22. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd by respondent No.2 and there was no tangible explanation for the delay. We have no doubt that if the appellant had pressed its prayer for issue of a mandamus to the official respondents to deliver possession of the acquired land after evicting the slum dwellers, the High Court would have non-suited it on the ground of laches by taking cognizance of total inaction between 23.6.1998, i.e., the date on which Deputy General Manager (Planning) had written letter to respondent No.2 to hand over vacant possession of the acquired land or refund the compensation, and January, 2006, when exchange of correspondence again started. The High Court would have also taken note of the fact that while the appellant was sleeping over its rights, the Municipal Corporation had sanctioned Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, the Cooperative Society formed by the slum dwellers had entered into development agreement with respondent No.5 and the latter had constructed buildings and handed over 600 units to the slum dwellers for permanent residence and dismissed the writ petition by applying the ratio of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai AIR 1964 SC 1006, the relevan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
