High Court · 2025
Facts
1 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.2059 OF 2025WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6219 OF 2025WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.1940 OF 20251] Jai Vishwa Bharati Sahakari Gruhnirman Sanstha Limited, Having its office At-Near Mahadev Temple, Garkheda, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Through its Authorized Director, Sandeep Bhagwanrao Deshpande Age: 45 years, Occ: AdvocateR/o- As above ..Petitioner VERSUS1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary,Urban Development Department,Mantralaya Mumbai,2] The Municipal CorporationChatrapati Sambhajinagar,Through its, Commissioner,3] Shri Sainath Education Society,The Society Registered under The Societies, Registration Act, having its office at:-Aurangabad, through its secretary Shashtri Nagar, Near Dr. Hegdewar Hospital,
Legal Reasoning
13 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc necessary party. Therefore, to the limited extent the ratio can bemade applicable. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of A.V.Papayya Sastry and Ors. Vs. Government of A.P and Ors. reported inAIR 2007 SC 1546 for the proposition that if the order is obtained byplaying fraud then it is a non est and can not be allowed to stand. It’sa nullity. As in the case at hand, the petitioner has come up with a pleaof fraud and suppression of material facts, we have to entertain thepetition on merits. The ratio is applicable to the present case.19.A trite law is that fraud vitiates everything and order obtainedby suppression of facts and fraud is Non est. Petitioner claims to benecessary party in earlier petition. Obviously adherence to theprinciples of natural justice needs to be gone into. In our consideredview, we find that present petition is maintainable. The objection ofthe respondents for maintainability of the petition is overruled. 20.Petitioner has a layout at the adjoining area of the plot bearingC.T.S No.15735/1/P allotted to the Respondent No.3. By gift deeddated 28.10.1970, 1 acre 32 gunthas comprising of site No.149 wastransferred to the Respondent No.2/corporation and it is inpossession of the same. Being local body as well as planningauthority, it is a prerogative of the Respondent No.2/corporation to 14 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc utilise the land vested in it. Petitioner or any other stakeholder can notobject the action of the corporation unless that is in violation of anystatute, rules or the public policy.21.Earlier Writ Petition No.8517 of 2024 was filed by theRespondent No.3/education society against state and municipalcorporation on 06.08.2024 praying for following reliefs : “(a) Rule nisi be issued(b) By issuing an appropriate writ or order, in the nature of mandamus,the respondent be directed to provide 9 meter wide access road to theleasehold property of the petitioner, given on a 30 year lease on27.6.2024, under registered lease deed No.4499/2024.(c) By issuing an appropriate writ or order, in the nature of mandamus,the respondent be directed to honour its commitment under clause 10(f)of the registered lease deed dated 27.6.2024.(d) Pending hearing and disposal of the petition, the respondent bedirected to provide an approach road for ingress and egress to theleasehold property specified in the lease deed dated 27.6.2024, toenable the petitioner to undertake and commence development activityon the leasehold property.(e) Any other equitable relief, to which the petitioner is found to beentitled in the circumstances of the case, be granted in the interest ofjustice.”22.In order to appreciate the submissions of learned seniorcounsel Mr.Dhorde and the intervenors, we have gone throughpleadings and affidavits in reply of the corporation therein andpleadings of R.C.S No.37 of 2024. Respondent No.3 was allotted apiece of land for running a school. As per terms of lease deed, it wasrequesting for providing approach road. Respondent No.3 could not 15 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc have asked any relief against the petitioner which was adjoiningsociety. It was upto the corporation being local body and the planningauthority to provide approach road. Pertinently, the Respondent No.3was not demanding road from any of the plots of lay out of thepetitioner’s society or any piece of land which was exclusively in itspossession. It can not be said that for execution of any of the reliefthe petitioner’s participation was required. In the earlier writ petition,present petitioner can not be said to be a necessary party. 23.The petitioner has filed R.C.S No.37 of 2024 on 04.09.2024, forperpetual injunction. Just because suit is filed, would not make it anecessary party in the petition filed by the Respondent No.3. Thepetitioner was not granted interim injunction in suit.The reliefs claimedin the petition before High Court and in suit before civil court weredistinct. The non-disclosure of pendency of suit is inconsequential.Therefore, we do not find any substance in the allegations ofsuppression of material facts. 24.Respondent No.3 filed Writ Petition No.8517 of 2024 on06.03.2024. Petitioner filed R.C.S No.37 of 2024 on 05.08.2024 beforeCivil Court at Aurangabad but it was registered on 05.09.2024.Roznama produced on record indicates that in pursuance of thesummons, Respondent No.2/corporation appeared on 15.10.2024 and 16 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc time was sought for filing say or written statement. On 30.11.2024say-cum-written statement was filed. Following paragraph of the sayis relevant : 22] The defendant submits that, the allottee Shri Sainath Education Societyhas filed Writ Petition no 8517/2024 before the Hon'ble High Curt Chh.Sambhaji Nagar for the relief of providing Access road to the land given to Iton lease i.e. portion marked "C" in the above map. In the said Writ Petitionthis defendant has filed Its detailed Affidavit In Reply. The defendantreserves its right to produce the copy thereof, on record before this Hon'bleCourt. 25.The matter was adjourned on 30.11.2024 for arguments ofExhibit-5 and was posted on 09.12.2024. The advocates of both thesides were absent and no arguments were advanced on applicationExhibit-5. Matter was adjourned to 13.01.2025 when application D-14was filed by the petitioner praying to defer the hearing of Exhibit-5.Thereafter, on the next date i.e on 13.01.2025 pursis was submitted bythe petitioner not pressing application Exhibit-5. Petitioner did notprosecute application Exhibit-5 before the civil court and has given upclaim for temporary injunction. This conduct creates doubt for thebona-fides of the petitioner, if it was concerned with trees andgarden.26.In the say filed by the corporation before civil court on30.11.2024, it was candidly disclosed in paragraph No.22 referred 17 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc above that Respondent No.3 had filed writ petition No.8517 of 2024.The writ petition was pending from 30.11.2024 to 23.01.2025 in the HighCourt. The petitioner had every opportunity to approach High Courteither by intervening in the petition or for filling independent petitionagainst the respondents but no timely steps were taken. Therefore,hue and cry made by the petitioner that order sought to be recalled ispassed behind it’s back has no substance. We find that petitioner isto be blamed for the lapses and can not be heard to say thatimpugned order is obtained by suppression of facts in civilproceedings. 27.We have recorded that petitioner was not a necessary party inWrit Petition No.8517 of 2024. The allotment of the plot and the leasedeed have not been challenged by the petitioner. Being a local bodyand the planning authority, Respondent No.2/corporation was boundto provide the approach road. A specific term No.(f) is incorporated inthe lease deed to that effect. Therefore, there was nothing wrong onthe part of Respondent No.3 to demand approach road. Learnedcounsel for the Respondent No.3 has referred to various provisions ofMunicipal Corporations Rules, 2023 for transferring the plot. Section205(a) of The Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949empowers the corporation to make a new street. Regulation No.3.2.1, 18 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc 3.2.2 and 3.3.14 stipulate obligation on the corporation to provide road.Prima facie there is reason to believe that it was a statutoryobligation upon the corporation and therefore there was nothingwrong in giving consent before the division bench for providing road. 28.It is the look out of the corporation to provide road to landlockedplots. The manner in which and the site from which the it is to beprovided is its discretion. If the intervenor or adjoining owners orstakeholders are offended by action of the corporation then they canresort to the remedy available in law. The recalling of order passed inWrit Petition No.8517 of 2024 can not be the recourse. No rights andliabilities of the parties are decided as such by the order in question.29.Impugned order shows the readiness of respondent/corporation to provide road as per the lease agreement. The consentgiven by the corporation can not be said to be extraneous or besidestheir statutory obligation. The corporation filed affidavit in reply beforethe division bench disclosing relevant facts. Reply was filed on28.08.2024 i.e before registration of suit filed by the petitioner. It is notrecorded in the impugned order to provide road from a particular landor plot. It is left to the discretion of the corporation. No case is madeout for bordering fraud or collusion . 19 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc 30.It is forcefully contended by the intervenor that the corporationshould have disclosed to the Division Bench that civil suit was sub-judice. Even if it was disclosed, we do not think that it would haveaffected or changed the order in question. The affected party chosenot to appear before High court. The learned counsel for thecorporation was in agreement with the request for providing approachroad, principally. We find no element of collusion or the fraud. 31.Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dhorde relied on the judgment ofPt.Chet Ram Vashist (Dead) by LRS. vs. Municipal Corporation ofDelhi reported in (1995) 1 SCC 47 and Vrajlal Jinabhai Patel, Sincedeceased through his L.R.s Smt. Jagrati Vrajlal Patel and another vs.State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2003 (3) Mh.L.J. Boththe judgments are on the same lines. Therefore, they are dealt withcommonly. By referring the ratio it is tried to be impressed thatcorporation has right to examine the lay out plan submitted by thecolonizer but while exercising such power it can not imposerestrictions and conditions which are unreasonable and against law.The issue germane the matter at hand is totally different andtherefore the ratio can not be made applicable. 32.Learned counsel Mr.Adwant for Respondent No.3 relied on 20 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc following judgments :A) Pt.Chet Ram Vashist (Dead) by LRS. vs. Municipal Corporation ofDelhi reported in (1995) 1 SCC 47..Our attention is adverted to paragraph Nos.4,6 and 7 of thejudgment. It is held that once the open space is transferred to thecorporation it is the custodian of the public interest and has tomanage the land in the interest of society in general. The effect oftransfer of the property is that the transferor ceased to be owner of itand ownership stands transferred to the person in whose favour it istransferred. As we are not deciding the issue in respect of the vestingof the open space of site No.149, we refrain ourselves fromcommenting anything on the basis of the cited judgment. B)P.R.Narhari Rao vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in(2012) 12 SCC 451. .The facts are distinguishable and therefore the ratio laiddown is not applicable to the facts involved in the present case. C) Budhia Swain and Others vs. Gopinath Deb and Othersreported in (1999) 4 SCC 396..In this case the power to recall is explained by Hon’ble ApexCourt in paragraph Nos.6 to 8 of the judgment. In the present casewe are not purely exercising the powers under Article 215 of the 21 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc Constitution of India because the petitioner was not a party toearlier writ petition. The allegations of fraud and collusions arelevelled in the case at hand and therefore we have held that writpetition is maintainable. D)Ramchandra Tukaram Mohite (Since deceased) through LRs.vs. Ramchandra Tukaram Mohite, Since deceased through heirsand L.R.’s and Others vs. State of Maharashtra, Through itsDepartment of Urban Development and Others reported in 2023SCC Online Bom.2640..We have gone through paragraph No.32 of the judgment. Thefacts are different and the ratio is not applicable.E) Vijay Nanikram Bhatia and Others vs. State of Maharashtra,Through Department of Urban Development and Others reported in2023 SCC Online Bom.2707..The judgment can not be made applicable because that isdistinguishable on facts. F) Shridhar and Another vs. Revanna and Others reported in(2020) 11 SCC 221..We have gone through paragraph No.25 of the judgment whichexplains what is the ‘public duty’ of the municipal corporation. We have 22 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc already observed that corporation is duty bound to provide approachroad for the landlocked properties. We derive support from the ratiolaid down in paragraph Nos.25, 26 and 27 of the judgment in observingthat in the present case also, Respondent/corporation is obliged toprovide road to the Respondent No.3.33.For the reasons assigned above, we find no merit in the writpetition. Hence,we pass following order : ORDERA)Writ Petition is dismissed. B)Rule is discharged. C)Civil Applications are disposed of. [ NEERAJ P.DHOTE J. ] [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]34.After pronouncement of the judgment, learned counsel for thepetitioner prays for the continuation of the statement made bylearned senior counsel Mr. Deshpande which is in operation tilltoday.35.Learned counsel Mr. Advant appearing for respondent No.3vehemently opposes the request. He would submit that his plot is 23 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc landlocked and he is unable to utilize the same for the purpose forwhich it is allotted to.36.There was statement made by learned senior counsel Mr.Deshpande which is in operation till today. It is in the form of statusquo. Today, there is nobody to either continue the statement ormake the statement. As the status quo is in operation till this date,we continue the status quo for the period of three (3) weeks fromtoday.37.It is clarified that the order shall stand vacated withoutreference to Court after expiration of three (3) weeks. [ NEERAJ P.DHOTE J. ] [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]vsj
Arguments
2 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc Smt. Anamika Pruthviraj Supekar ...Respondents ******Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.P.S.Dighe i/by. Mr. Vikram R.Dhorde*AGP for Respondent No.1 : Mr. D.B.Bhange*Advocate for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.S.B.Deshpande, Senior Advocate i/by Mr.S.P.Urgunde a/w. Mr. Amit Vaidya and Ms. Priyanka A.Deshpande*Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. Harish S.Adwant h/f. Mr. S.V.Adwant*Advocate for the Applicant in C.A. No.1940 of 2025 : Mr. V.S.Sapkal, Senior Advocatei/by Mr. S.R.Sapkal and Mr.A.D.Khedkar*Advocate for the Applicant in C.A No. 6219 of 2025 : Mr A.C.Darandale ****** CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME ANDNEERAJ P.DHOTE JJ. RESERVED ON : 23rd JULY 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 13th AUGUST 2025JUDGMENT : (Per : Shailesh P.Brahme,J.)1.Rule.2.Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of theparties. Heard litigating sides as well as both the intervenors. 3.By invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, petitioner is assailing the order of the co-ordinate bench dated23.01.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.8517 of 2024 of which one of us(Hon’ble Shri Justice Shailesh P.Brahme) was a party. Petitioner hasalso solicited direction to restrain the Respondent No.2/ corporationfrom constructing 9 meter’s width road from the disputed land and to 3 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc provide approach road to the Respondent No.3/education societyfrom adjoining open space. 4.At the outset, it needs to be clarified that the scope of thepresent petition is mainly to examine validity of the order dated23.01.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.8517 of 2024, as it has beenrecorded in order dated 19.06.2025 while deciding Civil ApplicationNo.5913 of 2025 in the present matter. We do not propose to expandthe scope of our enquiry by going into validity of resolution dated28.02.2024 passed by the Respondent/ corporation allotting piece ofland to the Respondent No.3/Education society and lease deedexecuted on 22.06.2024 by the respondent/corporation in pursuanceof it. By recording reasons in our order dated 19.06.2025, we refusedpermission to petitioner to incorporate the pleadings in respect of theaction of the corporation of allotting the suit plot to the respondentNo.3. In that view of the matter, the rival submissions of the partiesneed to be assessed. 5.Petitioner is a co-operative society and owner of Sy.No.62located at village Garkheda, Dist.Aurangabad of which Site No.149was part and parcel. For securing sanctioned lay-out from theplanning authority, open space of about 1 acre and 32 gunthascomprising of Site No.149 was transferred to the Respondent 4 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc No.2/corporation by registered gift deed dated 28.10.1970. Theadjoining site No.148 was reserved for school. The respondentNo.2/corporation allotted 3600 sq.mt. area bearing C.T.SNo.15735/1/P to the respondent No.3/education society by passingresolution on 28.02.2024. In pursuance of that, a lease deed wasexecuted by the respondent No.2 in favour of the respondentNo.3/education society on 27.06.2024 for period of 30 years. A clauseNo.5 is incorporated in the lease deed mandating the corporation toprovide road to the respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 requestedto provide road. The corporation did not respond. Hence, RespondentNo.3 filed Writ Petition No.8517 of 2024 on 06.08.2024 in High Courtagainst corporation.6.Petitioner noticed in June 2024 that respondent/corporationstarted felling the trees to provide approach road from site No.149 forthe school. Feeling aggrieved by the action and apprehending invasionon the peace, tranquility on it’s members and public at large, it filedR.C.S No.37 of 2024 before Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad on05.08.2024 which was registered on 05.09.2024 for the relief ofperpetual injunction. The Respondent/corporation caused it’sappearance and filed written statement-cum-say. Petitioner learntabout order dated 28.05.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.8517 of 2024. 5 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc In this backdrop, present petition is filed contending that order dated23.01.2025 passed in earlier writ petition is obtained by fraud andsuppression of material facts. The respondents were in collusion anddid not disclose pendency of R.C.S No.37 of 2024. It is furthercontended that it is impermissible for the corporation to provide roadfrom site No.149. The action of the corporation is arbitrary and highhanded. 7.Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed affidavit in reply contestingthe claim of the petitioner. They have raised preliminary objections onmaintainability of the petition and various pleas to demonstrate thatorder dated 23.01.2025 is in accordance with law and inter aliacontending that it’s a obligation of the respondent/corporation toprovide road. Two civil applications are filed by intervenors who arethe adjoining residents. 8.Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Dhorde appearing for the petitionersubmits that impugned order dated 23.01.2025 passed in Writ PetitionNo.8517 of 2024 has been obtained by suppression of material factsand fraud. Hence present writ petition is maintainable. He wouldsubmit that open space of site No.149 wherein garden is developedcan not be used for the approach road. It is impermissible to thecorporation to provide any road to the Respondent No.3. It is further 6 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc submitted that petitioner has already approached civil court videR.C.S No.37 of 2024 in which respondent/corporation appeared.These facts are suppressed while securing impugned orders from theDivision Bench. It is submitted that respondent/corporation acted incollusion with the Respondent No.3 in consenting before the divisionbench for providing road and this has been done behind the back ofthe petitioner. The petitioner was necessary party. It is furthersubmitted that the corporation even did not disclose variousrepresentations and the complaints made by representatives againstfelling of the trees. Lastly, it is submitted that open space is meantfor common utilization and part of it can not be converted into road. 9.Per contra, learned senior counsel Mr.Deshpande appearing forthe Respondent No.2/corporation has canvassed that petitioner hasno right, title or interest either in site No.149 or the road in question. Ithas no locus standi to claim any relief against the respondents. . Themaintainability of the petition is strongly challenged by him. It isfurther submitted that gift deed, allotment of the land and lease deedwere not challenged and therefore petitioner is estopped fromclaiming any relief. It is submitted that all relevant facts weredisclosed before division bench in Writ Petition No.8517 of 2024. Theallegations of suppression of facts, fraud and collusion are refuted. Itis further contended that by filing written statement, the corporation 7 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc had brought to the notice of the Civil Court as well as to presentpetitioner that Writ Petition No.8517 of 2024 had been filed but thepetitioner did not intervene in the petition. Learned counsel wouldsubmit that the corporation is under statutory obligation to provideroad to the landlocked land. It has secured permissions from thecompetent authority for the felling of trees and it is developing thegarden to safeguard the interest of the local residents and noprejudice would be caused to them as well as environment. 10.Learned counsel Mr.Adwant for the Respondent No.3 wouldsupport the submissions of the Respondent No.2/coporation.Additionally, it is submitted that by spending huge money, the land of3600 Sq.mt. of plot of C.T.S No.15735/1/P is being allotted to theRespondent No.3 for running a school. It’s a landlocked plot and it isnot possible to start construction unless there is approach road. Hewould point out various provisions from Development, Control andPromotional regulations, M.R.T.P Act and The Maharashtra MunicipalCorporations Act,1949 to buttress that to provide approach road is alegal duty. It is further submitted that after following due procedure oflaw it has been allotted a plot with which the petitioner is notconcerned. It is further submitted that conduct of the petitioner isobjectionable because for self-same relief it has chosen two forums.It failed to prosecute suit diligently. 8 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc 11.Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Sapkal appearing for the intervenorsdiscloses his client’s interest by adverting our attention to the prayerclause ‘D’ of the petition. His client is adjoining society and it’smembers are entitled to receive the benefits of open space andgarden. He also questions the conduct of the corporation in providingroad. The corporation should have disclosed the dispute raised by thepetitioner and pendency of civil suit before the bench which passedimpugned order. He would further submit that lease deed executed infavour of Respondent No.3 is bad in law. 12.Learned counsel Mr.Darandale appearing for the intervenoradopts the submissions of petitioner. He also would questionimpugned order on grounds of suppression of facts and collusion. 13.We have considered rival submissions of the parties. We havealready clarified that this Court can not go into the allotment of plot inquestion to the Respondent No.3, the procedure followed by thecorporation and the lease deed. Till this date the petitioner and theintervenors have not challenged the allotment of land to theRespondent No.3. 14.The respondents have raised preliminary objections regardingmaintainability of the writ petition. Petitioner is seeking quashment of 9 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc order dated 28.01.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.8517 of 2024 anddirection against respondent/corporation. Petitioner was not party tothe petition. It is claiming locus being adjoining society and it’smembers are the beneficiaries of the open space of site No.149through which 9 mt. road is proposed to be carved out. The groundsof objection in the petition and the submissions of learned seniorcounsel Mr.Dhorde indicate that suppression of material fact, fraudand collusion are the grounds on which order passed in earlier writpetition is sought to be challenged. The challenge is not merely on thebasis of illegality or propriety. 15.To sustain objection for maintainability of the petition, learnedsenior counsel Mr. Deshpande relied on the judgment of theConstitution Bench of the Apex Court in the matter of NareshShridhar Mirajkar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and othersreported in (1966) 3 SCR 744. Our attention is adverted to para Nos.37, 38 and 59. In that case oral orders of the learned Judge on theoriginal side of the Bombay High Court prohibiting publication ofevidence of Mr. Guda was the subject matter. The question was thatwhether impugned order affects fundamental rights of the petitionerunder Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. In that contextobservations are made in above referred paragraphs. The law laid 10 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc down by the Constitution Bench cannot be made applicable to thecase at hand because in the present matter writ petition is filed onthe allegations of fraud, collusion and suppression of material facts. 16.Further reliance is placed on the judgment in the matter ofTriveniben Vs. State of Gujrat reported in (1989) 1 SCC 678. We havegone through para No. 22 of the judgment. The facts aredistinguishable and this judgment also will not help the respondents.Lastly reliance is placed on the judgment in the matter of ManinderKaur Vs. Delhi High Court and others reported in 1995(1) SLR 320. Wehave gone through paragraph No. 21 of the judgment. In that case thedecision of the Division Bench was sought to be reviewed. Citedjudgment is in the context of altogether different facts. In the presentmatter fraud and suppression of material facts besides violation ofprinciples of natural justice are pressed into service. Hence thisjudgment also will not help the respondents.17.Learned senior counsel Mr. R. N. Dhorde relied on the judgmentin the matter of Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde and another Vs. TheState of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 1994 SC 1673. Inthat case two members of the co-operative society had filed writpetition for mandamus to the Collector and Election Officer toconduct election. Division Bench passed order. Second Writ Petition 11 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc was filed and earlier order got modified to enable 2000 newly enrolledvoters to participate in election. Third writ petition was filed pointingout collusion and fraud. It’s maintainability was questioned.Interestingly, judgment of Constitution Bench in case of NareshShridhar Mirajkar and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.reported in AIR 1967 SC 1 which is sited by respondents in presentcase was referred to and it is held that such writ petition is tenable.Following are the relevant extracts : “11.Obviously finding the piquant situation in which Patil, More andMule have been placed themselves, Sri Ashok Desai the learned Senior counselappearing for Society, sought to salvage their problem placing reliance on theratio of this Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors. v. State ofMaharashtra and Anr. [1966]3SCR744. Therein the facts were that the HighCourt of Bombay, while trying a suit for defamation against the editor of aweekly newspaper, exercised its inherent power under Section 151 C.P.C.,conducted the trial of the suit in camera and prohibited publication of theevidence and the proceeding so as to prevent business of the editor of thenewspaper being affected. A writ petition was filed under Article 32 in thisCourt challenging the validity of the order of the High Court contending interalia that the High Court had no jurisdiction to prohibit publication of the news;it affected their rights under Article 19(1)(a) and it was resisted on the groundthat the writ petition under Article 32 was not maintainable to review judicialorder of the court. This Court by seven Judges per majority held that thepetitioners had no fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). The Court hadinherent power and jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to conduct in cameratrial and to prohibit publication of its proceeding of evidence and that writpetition under Article 32 is not maintainable to quash the judicial order. It isseen that the court, in order to protect the interest of one of the parties to thesuit, exercised inherent power and jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC, passeda judicial order prohibiting publication of the proceeding in the suit or theevidence of the witness. It being a judicial order no third party has a right tointervene and challenge the same in the proceedings under Article 32 of theConstitution. The ratio therein has no application to the facts of this case.Undoubtedly, the order passed by the High Court under Article 226 is a judicialorder exercising its constituent power but when its process is abused and anorder of minutes obtained by consent hedged with collusion and fraud on theCourt and obviously, though not pleaded, on general body of the members of the 12 WRIT PETITION NO.2059-2025.doc society, when the facts were brought to the notice of the High Court, it is theHigh Court alone or on appeal this Court which is to correct such and order.12. Mr. Justice Arthur T. Venderbilt in his "The Change of Law Reform 1955"at pages 4 and 5, stated that: ...it is in the Courts and not in the legislature that our citizens primarily feelthe keen, the cutting edge of the law. If they have respect for the work of theircourts, their respect for law will survive the short comings of every otherbranch of the Government; but if they lost their respect for the work of theCourts, their respect for the law and order will vanish with it to the greatdetriment of society. (vide the Judicial Process by H.J. Abraham, p.3)13. Respect for law is one of the cardinal principles for an effective operation ofthe constitution, law and the popular Government. The faith of the people isthe source and succour to invigorate justice intertwined with the efficacy of law.The principle of justice is ingrained in our conscience and though ours is anascent democracy which has now taken deep roots in our ethos of adjudication- be it judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative as hallmark, the faith of thepeople in the efficacy of judicial process would be disillusioned, if the partiesare permitted to abuse its process and allowed to go scot free. It is but theprimary duty and highest responsibility of the court to correct such orders atthe earliest and restore the confidence of the litigant public, in the purity offountain of justice; remove stains on the efficacy of judicial adjudication andrespect for rule of law, lest people would lose faith in the courts and takerecourse to extra-constitutional remedies which is a death-knell to the rule oflaw.”18.Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the judgment of PohlaSingh alias Pohla Ram (D) By LRS. Vs And Others vs. State of Punjaband Others reported in (2004) SC 126. It is pointed out that thesecond writ petition seeking to recall the decision passed in earlierwrit petition in which they were not parties and the decision wasadversely affecting the interest, is maintainable. In the presentpetition we have already held that petition is maintainable. However,we have our reservations for the claim of the petitioner that it is a