RAVINDRA v. GHUGE ANDY. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON
Legal Reasoning
WP-9456-2023 judgment.odtIN THE HIGH COURT O F JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 9456 OF 2023Pradip s/o Surajmal GandhiProprietor – Nayan Motors,Age: 68 years, Occu. Business,R/o Vardhaman Hsg. Society,Ward No.7, Canal road,Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur,District Ahmednagar… PETITIONER VERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary,Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Deptt.,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 0322.Commissioner & Registrar for Co-operation,New Central Building,2nd Floor, Pune.3.Additional Registrar (Admn.)Co-operative Societies, MS,Pune4.Chairman, Administrative Board,Dwarkadas Mantri Nagari Co.op,Bank Ltd., Jalna Road, Beed5.Chief Executive Officer,Dwarkadas Mantri Nagari Co.op.Bank Ltd., Jalna Road, Beed6.Tahasildar, Tahsil Office,Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar… RESPONDENTS .… 1 of 23
Legal Reasoning
(( 2 )) WP-9456-2023 judgmentMr. S. S. Thombre, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. N. P. Bangar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.…CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ANDY. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON :: 07.12.2023 10.01.2024JUDGMENT (Per:- Y. G. Khobragade, J.) :- 1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consentof both sides, the matter is heard finally.2.By the present Petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for issuance of Writ ofMandamus, directing Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to grant benefit ofOne Time Settlement (O. T. S.) to him to clear the outstanding loan inview of Government Resolution dated 31.08.2021. 3.Shri Thombre, learned Counsel appearing for thePetitioner canvassed that, the Petitioner had obtained loan in the year2004 to the tune of Rs. 35,00,000/- from the Respondent No. 5Dwarkadas Mantri Nagari Co-Op, Bank Ltd., Jalna Road, Beed. 2 of 23 (( 3 )) WP-9456-2023 judgmentHowever, the Petitioner failed to repay the loan amount. Hence it wasdeclared NPA (Non Performance Assets). The Respondent no. 5 Bankis under control of the Reserve Bank of India ( in short R. B. I.).Respondent No 5 is required to follow the guidelines issued by the R. B. I. from time to time. On 05.01.2022, the Respondent No.5 Bankissued a public notice as per the resolution issued by the StateGovernment on 13.08.2021. As per the public notice, the scheme ofOne Time Settlement (OTS) was introduced w.e.f. 05.01.2022 inorder to clear the outstanding loans for the defaulters/borrowers.Therefore, on 10.03.2022, the Petitioner submitted an application toRespondent No.5 praying for extension of benefit of one timesettlement scheme (OTS) and repay the outstanding loan amount. Inreply to that application, Respondent No.5 issued a communicationdated 14.03.2022 and informed the Petitioner about inclusion of hisname in the list of O. T. S. scheme. Therefore, on 21.06.2022, thePetitioner submitted a representation to Respondent No.5 that, hisloan account has been included in the O. T. S. Scheme list and alsodeposited 5% amount of the outstanding loan. 4.The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitsthat, by a communication dated 14.03.2022, the Petitioner was 3 of 23 (( 4 )) WP-9456-2023 judgmentinformed that, an amount of Rs.53,77,174/- is outstanding againstthe Petitioner (deducting 5% amount of the O. T. S.) i.e.Rs.2,22,431/- which was deposited by him on 10.03.2022.Thereafter, on 19.05.2022, the Petitioner deposited an amount ofRs.7,77,569/- vide cheque bearing No.656809 drawn on H. D. F. C.bank and on 02.06.2022, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- deposited, butan amount of Rs.55,99,595/- is still shown as outstanding amountagainst the Petitioner by miscalculation of interest. Thereafter, thePetitioner also prayed to the Respondent No.5 for grant of sixinstallments to pay outstanding loan. 5.The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner furthersubmits that, though, the Petitioner is entitled for getting benefit ofO. T. .S scheme, but the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 denied such benefitto him, therefore, the Petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 3207 of2022 before this Court and this Court was pleased to pass an orderdirecting the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to consider the application ofthe Petitioner for grant of O. T. S. scheme. In pursuance of the order,schedule of hearing was fixed on 02.08.2022. During the course ofhearing, the Petitioner prayed for grant of O. T. S. scheme in terms ofGovernment Resolution dated 06.06.2022, however, the Petitioner 4 of 23 (( 5 )) WP-9456-2023 judgmentwas informed about taking decision in the meeting of AdministrativeBoard of the bank. On 04.03.2023, the Petitioner issued a letter toRespondent No.5 Chief Executive Officer of the bank and requested toconsider his request for grant of benefit of O. T. S. as he already hasdeposited an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-of his loan account. However,vide order dated 19.05.2023, Respondent No.4 rejected the saidapplication. Therefore, action on part of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 isillegal, unjust, arbitrary and illegal. 6.To buttress this submission, the learned counsel for thePetitioner relied upon order dated 14.03.2023 passed passed in WritPetition No. 2563 of 2023, Ambika Industries through its ProprietorVs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.( Coram : Ravindra V. Ghugeand Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ) and order dated 24.03.2023, passed inWrit Petition No.3415 of 2023, wherein the financial institution wasdirected to consider the request of the Petitioner for the O. T. S.scheme.7.Mr. Momin Shafiyoddin Hisamoddin, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Respondent Co-op Bank Ltd., has filed an affidavit-in-reply and strongly resisted the claim of the Petitioner. 5 of 23 (( 6 )) WP-9456-2023 judgment8.The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 4and 5 submitted that, in the year 2004, the Proprietor of NayanMotors i.e. the present petitioner, availed the loan to the tune ofRs.35,00,000/- from Respondent No.4 Bank by mortgaging theimmovable property described in the mortgage-deed i.e. the Building,namely, “Sai Suraj Complex” excluding some portion of Shri Wableand Shri Jaggi but the Petitioner failed to repay the loan amount,hence, loan account of the Petitioner has been declared N.P.A.Accordingly, Respondent No.4 Bank issued a notice under Section13(4) read with Rule 8(1) of SARFAESI, Act and Rules and tooksymbolic possession of the secured assets. Though, the Petitioneravailed permissible remedy before the D. R. T. by filing SecuritisationApplication No.61 of 2011, but the Petitioner did not get any relief.Since the Petitioner did not challenge the order dated 11.12.2023passed in Securitisation Application No.61 of 2011 before theAppellate Authority, therefore, the Order Passed by Ld. Debt RecoveryTribunal attained finality. 9.On 29.09.2015, the District Magistrate passed an order, andpermitted the Respondent Bank to take possession of the secured 6 of 23 (( 7 )) WP-9456-2023 judgmentassets. Accordingly, on 25.04.2018, Respondent bank took possessionof the secured asset under the police protection as per Panchnamaand sealed the mortgaged property. However, the Petitioner brokenseal and illegally entered into the sealed property by de-sealing.Therefore, on 01.05.2018, the officer of the Respondent Bank lodgedan FIR vide Crime No. I-138/2018 with Shrirampur Police Stationagainst the Petitioner (borrower) for the offence punishable underSections 188, 542 and 454 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section29 of the SARFAESI Act.10.Further, the Petitioner filed Miscellaneous CriminalApplication No. 83 of 2018 on 07.05.2018, before the learnedSessions Court at Shrirampur for anticipatory bail. On 11.05.2018,the learned Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/loan borrower. Therefore, the Respondent bank approached this Courtwith an application bearing A.C.B. No. 79 of 2018 for cancellation ofbail granted by Session court. On 20.03.2019, this Court passed aninterim order and directed the present Petitioner to deposit anamount of Rs.35,00,000/-, with Respondent Bank within a period offour weeks from the date of order and, if the Petitioner fails to depositthe said amount, this Court would pass appropriate order, for 7 of 23 (( 8 )) WP-9456-2023 judgmentcancellation of anticipatory bail. Despite of this the petitioner did notdeposit amount, but he filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal)No.3854 of 2019 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, on02.05.2019, the said SLP was dismissed. 11.The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 4and 5 submits that, the Respondent No.4 financial institution is facinghuge financial crisis due to increase in N. P. A. the R. B. I. has Imposedfinancial restrictions on the Respondent No.4 Bank. The depositorsare not allowed to withdraw the amount from their account beyondthe limit of Rs. 5,000/-, so also the loan borrower cannot seek benefitunder one time settlement as of right and if the Petitioner is permittedto extend the benefit of O. T. S. scheme, in that event, it wouldamount to give premium to a dishonest borrower. 12.In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel forRespondent Nos. 4 and 5 placed reliance on the case of Bijnor UrbanCooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor and Others Vs. Meenal Agarwal andothers – (2023) 2 SCC 805, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court hasobserved in paragraph Nos. 12 to 15, as under :-“12. Even otherwise, as observed hereinabove, no borrowercan, as a matter of right, pray for grant of benefit of one-timesettlement scheme. In a given case, it may happen that a person 8 of 23 (( 9 )) WP-9456-2023 judgmentwould borrow a huge amount, for example, Rs 100 crores. Afteravailing the loan, he may deliberately not pay any amounttowards installments, though able to make the payment. Hewould wait for the OTS scheme and then pray for grant ofbenefit under the OTS scheme under which,always a lesser amount than the amount due and payableunder the loan account will have to be paid. This, despite therebeing all possibility for recovery of the entire loan amountwhich can be realised by selling the mortgaged/securedproperties. If it is held that the borrower can still, as a matter ofright, pray for benefit under the OTS scheme, in that case, itwould be giving a premium to a dishonest borrower, who,despite the fact that he is able to make the payment and thefact that the bank is able to recover the entire loan amounteven by selling the mortgaged/secured properties, either fromthe borrower and/or guarantor. This is because under the OTSscheme a debtor has to pay a lesser amount than the actualamount due and payable under the loan account. Such cannotbe the intention of the bank while offering OTS scheme andthat cannot be the purpose of the scheme which may encouragesuch a dishonesty.13. If a prayer is entertained on the part of the defaulting unit/person to compel or direct the financial corporation/bank toenter into a one-time settlement on the terms proposed byit/him, then every defaulting unit/person which/who is capableof paying its/his dues as per the terms of the agreemententered into by it/him would like to get one-time settlement inits/his favour. Who would not like to get his liability reducedand pay lesser amount than the amount he/she is liable to payunder the loan account? In the present case, it is noted that theoriginal writ petitioner and her husband are making thepayments regularly in two other loan accounts and thoseaccounts are regularised. Meaning thereby, they have thecapacity to make the payment even with respect to the presentloan account and despite the said fact, not a single 9 of 23 (( 10 )) WP-9456-2023 judgmentamount/installment has been paid in the present loan accountfor which original petitioner is praying for the benefit under theOTS Scheme.14.The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion wouldbe that no writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Courtin exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, directing a financial institution/bank to positively grantthe benefit of OTS to a borrower. The grant of benefit underthe OTS is always subject to the eligibility criteria mentionedunder the OTS scheme and the guidelines issued from time-to-time. If the bank/financial institution is of the opinion that theloanee has the capacity to make the payment and/or that thebank/financial institution is able to recover the entire loanamount even by auctioning the mortgaged property/securedproperty, either from the loanee and/or guarantor, the bankwould be justified in refusing to grant the benefit under theOTS scheme. Ultimately, such a decision should be left to thecommercial wisdom of the bank whose amount is involved andit is always to be presumed that the financial institution/bankshall take a prudent decision whether to grant the benefit ornot under the OTS scheme, having regard to the public interestinvolved and having regard to the factors which are narratedhereinabove.15.In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasonstated above, we are of the firm opinion that the High Court, inthe present case, has materially erred and has exceeded in itsjurisdiction in issuing a writ of mandamus in exercise of itspowers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India bydirecting the appellant Bank to positively consider/grant thebenefit of OTS to the original writ petitioner. The impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court is henceunsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and isaccordingly quashed and set aside.” 10 of 23 (( 11 )) WP-9456-2023 judgment13.Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf ofboth the sides, we have gone through the record. It is an undisputedfact that, in the year 2004, the petitioner availed loan ofRs.35,00,000/- from the Respondent no. 4 Bank. While borrowing theloan, the petitioner, mortgaged immovable properties viz., C. T. S.No.1370 (S.No.68/2) to the extent of 0.04 R and Survey No.68/2(CTS No.1370 A1) to the extent of 06 R. As per recital of MortgageDeed, the description of property is the building, namely, “Sai SurajComplex” standing on the said plot except the portion sold to ShriWable and Shri Jaggi. Though, sufficient opportunities were providedto Petitioner for repayment of loan, he failed to repay the same.Ultimately, on 06-10-2008, the Respondent Bank issued demandnotice under Section 13(2) read with Rule 8(1) of the Securitisationand Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act). Thereafter the symbolicpossession of mortgaged property was taken by the bank. 14.Needless to say that, the Petitioner approached this Courtby filing Writ Petition No.4696 of 2010, but the said Writ Petition wasdismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy.Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, 11 of 23 (( 12 )) WP-9456-2023 judgmentAurangabad by filing Securitisation Application No.61 of 2011,however, the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the saidapplication on 11.12.2013. The Petitioner did not prefer an appealagainst said order, hence, it attained finality. Thereafter theRespondent No.4 Financial Institution submitted an applicationunder Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the District Magistrate,Ahmednagar. On 29.09.2015, the District Magistrate passed an order,and permitted the Respondent Bank to take possession of the securedassets. Accordingly, on 25.04.2018, the Respondent bank tookpossession of the secured asset under police protection as perPanchnama and sealed the mortgaged property. However, thePetitioner broke the seal and illegally entered into the sealedproperty by an illegal act. Therefore, on 01.05.2018, the officer of theRespondent Bank lodged an FIR vide Crime No. I-138/2018 withShrirampur Police Station against the Petitioner (borrower) for theoffence punishable under Sections 188, 542 and 454 of the IndianPenal Code read with Section 29 of the SARFAESI Act.15.It is a matter of record that the Petitioner had filed ananticipatory bail application bearing Miscellaneous CriminalApplication No.83 of 2018 before the Additional Sessions Judge, 12 of 23 (( 13 )) WP-9456-2023 judgmentShrirampur and prayed for anticipatory bail in Crime No. I-138 of2018. On 11.05.2018, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passedan order and had granted anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. Beingaggrieved by said order, the Respondent No.4 Bank filed Applicationfor Cancellation of Bail vide A. C. B. No.79 of 2018 before the Single Bench of this Court. On 20.03.2019, the Single bench of thisCourt passed the following order:-::ORDER::“1]On 21st January, 2019, before this Court [Coram: V. K.Jadhav, J.] learned counsel for respondent no.2, whoseanticipatory bail is sought to be cancelled by the FinancialInstitution, makes a statement that he will take instructionsabout handing over the possession of the property or in thealternate to deposit the entire amount. Till today, no concretestatement is made by the learned counsel for respondent no.2.However, in order to give one chance to respondent no.2, thefollowing order is passed:ORDERi]The respondent no.2 to deposit the amount of Rs. 35lakh, which is principal amount, that was borrowed byrespondent no.2 from the applicant – Dwarkadas Mantri NagriSahakari Bank Ltd., Beed, within a period of four weeks fromtoday.ii]If the aforesaid amount is not deposited, this Court willpass appropriate order of not only canceling the anticipatorybail, but also taking steps for obtaining possession fromrespondent no.2. iii]Put up this matter on 22nd April, 2019.” 13 of 23 (( 14 )) WP-9456-2023 judgment16.Needless, to say that, being aggrieved by said order, thepresent Petitioner has approached before the Hon’ble Apex Court byfiling Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.3854 of 2019. However, on02.05.2019, the Hon’ble Apex Court has dismissed said Special Leaveto Appeal. Since, the Petitioner did not comply with the order dated20.03.2019 passed by this Court, Respondent No.4 had filedapplication for cancellation of Bail No.79 of 2018. On 03.03.2022,the Single Judge of this Court and set aside the order dated11.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Shrirampur, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 83 of 2018arising out of in Crime No. I-138 of 2018 with the direction to thePetitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer of ShrirampurPolice Station. However, the Petitioner has not disclosed the fact that,he trespassed over the sealed property by breaking the seal and theregistration of an offence against him for such illegal acts. So also, hehas not disclosed about filing of A.C.B. No. 79 of 2018 by theRespondent Bank and passing of order in respect of depositing of Rs.35,00,000/- principal amount within stipulated period and on failureto deposit the amount his anticipatory bail was cancelled. He has alsonot disclosed the fact about the dismissal of Special Leave Petition 14 of 23 (( 15 )) WP-9456-2023 judgment(Criminal) No.3854 of 2019 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02-05-2019. 17.It seems that, the Respondent No.4 Bank approached tothe District Collector, Ahmednagar for the second time with anapplication u/s 14 of the SARFAESI, Act. The Petitioner again filedW. P. No.3649 of 2023 before this Court with the prayer for issuanceof directions. Accordingly, on 30.03.2023, this Court passed an orderand directed the District Magistrate, Ahmednagar to decide therepresentation dated 14.12.2018 in the light of the judgment passedin Writ Petition No.10069 of 2022, as expeditiously as possible and inany case, within a period of six weeks from the service of the order. Itis, therefore, apparent that, the petitioner has suppressed materialfacts from this court and played "hide and seek", which is not at allpardonable. The conduct of the Petitioner is covered by the law laiddown by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishore Samrite vs State ofUttar Pradesh and others, (2013) 2 SCC 398 and Bhaskar LaxmanJadhav and others Vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Societyand others, (2013) 11 SCC 531. 18.It is needless to say that on 15.11.2017, the StateGovernment has issued a Government Resolution and made the one 15 of 23 (( 16 )) WP-9456-2023 judgmenttime settlement scheme applicable in respect of co-operative banksregistered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act to reduceN. P. A. As per the said Government Resolution, doubtful loss or N.P.Awere to be considered. The said scheme was up to 31.03.2018. But itwas extended up to June 2022. As per Clause 7 of the saidGovernment Resolution dated 15.11.2017, the financial institutionswere required to consider the date of N. P. A. account by following theprocedure prescribed therein. As per clause 8, the loan borrower andthe financial institutions were required to ascertain the specificamount by considering ledger balance (Principal + interest)minimum 5%. As per the said scheme, the loan borrower wasrequired to deposit 25% accrued amount in 11 installments, however,if the loan borrower failed to deposit 25% within a period of onemonth, in that circumstances, it would be presumed that, the loanborrower has declined the offer. As per Clause 9 (B) all theinstitutions would be required to apply scheme of O. T. S. withoutany discrimination. 19.On 16.03.2016, the State Government issued a circularand extended the scheme as a last chance till 31.03.2017. Indeed,the Petitioner submitted an application seeking O. T. S. scheme. On 16 of 23 (( 17 )) WP-9456-2023 judgment19.05.2023, Respondent No.4 - financial institution passed an orderand rejected the request of the Petitioner on the ground that thePetitioner bank had already seized secured assets/mortgagedproperty after obtaining the order from the District Magistrate underSection 14 of the SARFAESI, Act. The Petitioner had broken the sealand illegally entered on the seized property. Though the Petitionerwas granted sufficient opportunity for repayment of loan, but itremained unpaid. The price of the property is more than the loanamount and the Petitioner is avoiding to repay the loan, so also theRBI imposed ban upon Respondent No.4 as per the provisions andSection 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act.20In the case of Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited,(supra), the loan borrower cannot claim grant of benefits of OTSscheme as of right and the same is subject to fulfillment of theeligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme. The Hon'ble Apex Courtin the case of Bijnor (supra), has observed in paragraphs 8 and 9 asunder:- "8.Therefore, as per the guidelines issued, the grant ofbenefits of OTS Scheme cannot be prayed as a matter of rightand the same is subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteriamentioned in the scheme. The defaulters who are ineligibleunder the OTS Scheme are mentioned in Clause 2, reproducedhereinabove. A willful defaulter in repayment of loan and a 17 of 23 (( 18 )) WP-9456-2023 judgmentperson who has to paid even a single installment after takingthe loan and will not be able to pay the loan will be consideredin the category of "defaulter" and shall not be eligible for grantof benefit under the OTS Scheme. Similarly, a person whoseaccount is declared as "NPA" shall also not be eligible. As perthe guidelines, the Bank is required to constitute a SettlementAdvisory Committee for the purpose of examining theapplications received and thereafter the said Committee has totake a decision after considering whether a defaulter is entitledto the benefit of OTS or not after considering the eligibility asper the OTS Scheme. While making recommendations, theSettlement Advisory Committee has to consider whether effortshave been made to recover the loan amount and the possibilityof recovery has been minimised, meaning thereby if there ispossibility of recovery of the amount, either by initiatingappropriate proceedings or by auctioning the propertymortgaged and/or the properties given as a security either byborrower and/or by the guarantor, the application submitted bythe borrower for grant of benefit under the OTS Scheme can berejected.9.In the present case, despite the fact that it wasspecifically pointed out before the High Court by way ofcounter-affidavit that (i) the recovery proceedings under theSARFAESI Act are pending, (ii) the borrower and her husbandhave availed two credit facilities and both the loan accounts aremaintained regularly and the money is being deposited onregular basis; (iii) the Settlement Advisory Committeeconcluded that the borrower is enjoying a good financial statusand the secured assets are sufficient in case if any recovery is tobe made and by auctioning the mortgaged property the bankcan recover the entire loan amount, the High Court failed toconsider the aforesaid aspects in their true perspective and hasissued a writ of mandamus as if the grant of benefit under theOTS Scheme can be claimed as a matter of right."21.In the case in hand, though the Petitioner has been givensufficient opportunities to repay the loan amount, the Petitioner failed 18 of 23 (( 19 )) WP-9456-2023 judgmentto do so. Earlier also, the proceeding under the SARFAESI, Act wasinitiated against the Petitioner. He had also filed two (unsuccessful)writ petitions against Respondent No.4 financial institution.Therefore, it appears that the Petitioner is not willing to repay theloan and has succeeded in frustrating the recovery attempts of theBank by filing petitions after petitions, on one or other ground.22.In view of above discussion, We do not find that, thePetitioner is entitled for OTS as per G.R. 31-08-2021 issued by theState Government. So also, action on the part of the Respondent Bankdoes not appear violative of principles of natural justice and nofundamental right of the petitioner has violated. Rather, the Petitionerhas taken law in his hands and shown the courage of breaking theseal and taking possession of the mortgaged property. There areseveral facts that have been deliberatedly suppressed by thePetitioner. 23.In the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav ( supra ), whileconsidering the suppression of the facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Courtheld that, it is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material foradjudicating a case. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all thefacts of his case. 19 of 23 (( 20 )) WP-9456-2023 judgment24.In the case of Kishore Samrite ( supra ), the Hon'bleSupreme Court has clearly held that it is the bounden duty of theCourt to ensure that a dishonest attempt to surpass the legal processmust be effectively curbed and the Court must ensure that there is nowrongful unauthorized or unjust gain to any one as a result of theabuse of the process of law and one way to curb this tendency is toimpose punitive costs. It is further held that, no litigant can play "hideand seek" with the court. Facts ought to be disclosed as the Courtknows the law, but not the facts, unless they are disclosed by thelitigant. One, who prays for justice, must come with clean hands tothe Court and should not indulge in suppression or concealment ofmaterial facts which is impermissible. 25.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Jayaram vsBangalore Development Authority and Others(2022) 12 SCC 815 hasHeld in (Para 10) as under:10. it is well settled that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to stateall facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage overthe other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the 20 of 23 (( 21 )) WP-9456-2023 judgmentcourt as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced.26.In the present case, the petitioner has suppressed factabout trespassing over the sealed mortgaged property by breaking theseal/lock for which an FIR was already registered again him. Thepetitioner also suppressed about obtaining anticipatory bail from theCourt of Sessions, and the Order dated 20-03-2019 passed by theSingle Bench of this Court and imposition of condition about depositof 35 Lakhs within 4 weeks with the Respondent Bank. Further healso suppressed the fact of filing of Special Leave Petition No. 3854 of2019 before the Hon’ble Apex Court and it’s dismissal on 02-05-2019.Hence by this petition, the petitioner has not only wasted the time ofthe court, but also mislead the Court and attempted to play fraud onthis Court. Such type of litigant requires to be dealt with by a firmhand and no leniency can be shown to them.27.Therefore, considering the observations made in BhaskarLaxman Jadhav (supra), Kishor Samrite (supra) and K. Jayaram(supra), this Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.2,00,000/- (RupeesTwo Lakhs). The Petitioner shall deposit the above said cost with theRegistry of this Court within a period of 30 days from today, failingwhich, we direct the District Collector, Ahmednagar to initiate action 21 of 23 (( 22 )) WP-9456-2023 judgmentagainst the petitioner under the provisions of the Maharashtra LandRevenue Code and to recover said amount as arrears of land Revenue.28.After the amount as directed above is deposited, theRegistry of this Court shall transmit the same to the followingInstitutions as under:-Sr. No. Name of InstitutionAmount to betransmitted 1.The Library of Advocate’sAssociation of Bombay High Court,Bench at AurangabadRs. 25,000/-2.Advocates’ Association of BombayHigh Court, Bench at AurangabadRs. 25,000/-3.Infant India, Anandwan, 659/InfantHill, Infront of Bindusara Dam, N.H.211, Pali, Beed – 431122. Mobile -9422693585/9822456411Canara Bank A/c. No.3773201000011, IFS Code:CNRB0003773Rs. 25,000/-4.Orphanage home i.e. “Shantivan”,Arvi, Tq.Shirur Kasar, District Beed,in the name of “Bhavani VidhyarthiKalyan Pratishthan, Arvi” byway of electronic transfer (StateBank of India, Branch Shirur(Kasar), Account No.33446000963,IFSC Code : SBIN0005995).Rs. 25,000/-5.The Government Medical Collegeand Hospital (GHATI) atChhatrapati Sambhajinagar.Rs. 50,000/-6.The Government Cancer Hospital atChhatrapati Sambhajinagar.Rs. 50,000/- 22 of 23 (( 23 )) WP-9456-2023 judgment29.Rule is discharged. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ]SMS 23 of 23