The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.31241 and 24316 of 2023 1. M/s. Chandan Security Services represented by its Proprietor Paresh Nath Das, Son of late Raghunath Das, Kanika Road, Tulasipur, Cuttack,Pin-753008 …Petitioner -Versus- 1. State of Odisha represented by the Principal Secretary to Govt. Housing and Urban Development Department, Lok Seba Bhawan, Sachivalaya Marg, Bhubaneswar, Dist.-Khordha. 2. The Pattamundai Municipality represented by its Executive Officer, At/P.O.-Patamundai, Dist-Kendrapara 3. M/s. Universal Security Services represented by Authorised Signatory Rohinikanta Mahanty, Son of late Ramakanta Mahanty, At- Ward No.8, Godisahi, P.O/P.S.-Karanjia, Dist.-Mayurbhanj PIN- 757037. W.P.(C) Nos.31241 and 24316 of 2023 Page 1 of 11 4. The Chairperson, Pattamundai Municipality, At/P.O.-Pattamundai, Dist-Kendrapara …Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in these cases: For the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Advocate For Opposite Party No.1 : Mr. Lalatendu Samantray, Additional Government Advocate For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. B. K. Routray, Advocate For Opposite Party No.3 : Mr. M. K. Panda, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT 11.09.2024 Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ. 1. Both these writ applications have been filed by the same petitioner through the same learned Advocate and since both the matters relate to same contractual work for sanitation in Ward Nos.1,2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 and 20 of Pattamundai
Decision
Municipality, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present common judgment and order. W.P.(C) Nos.31241 and 24316 of 2023 Page 2 of 11 2. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised an objection over this Court taking up both the matters together on the ground that as per the roster, W.P.(C) No.24316 of 2023 is a Single Bench matter and, therefore, the same should not be heard by us in the absence of any specific administrative order passed by the Chief Justice. The said submission is manifestly preposterous and deserves to be rejected at the very threshold noticing the earlier judicial orders passed by this Court on 02.02.2024, 12.08.2024 and 20.08.2024, which read as under:- Order dated 02.02.2024 “1. xxx 2. List this matter after one week along with W.P.(C) No.24316 of 2023. xxx xxx Sd/- (DR. B. R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE” Order dated 12.08.2024 “1. xxx 2. List this matter tomorrow i.e. 13.08.2024 along with W.P.(C) No.24316 of 2023. xxx xxx Chief Justice Sd/- (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Judge” Sd/- (Savitri Ratho) W.P.(C) Nos.31241 and 24316 of 2023 Page 3 of 11 Order dated 20.08.2024 “1. xxx 2. List this matter on 27.08.2024 along with W.P.(C) No.24316 of 2023 within first five cases. xxx xxx Sd/- (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice Judge” Sd/- (Savitri Ratho) 3. We have heard both the writ applications and we intend to dismiss the matters taking into account suppression of material facts, which is not only by the petitioner but also on the advice of learned counsel for the petitioner, for reasons which are being discussed hereunder. 4. It is deemed apposite to notice first, certain essential facts asserted in W.P.(C) No.24316 of 2023. The petitioner filed this writ application seeking quashing of a letter No.2364 dated 19.07.2023 issued by the Executive Officer, Pattamundai Municipality, District- Kendrapara whereby the petitioner’s contract for providing service of sanitation was terminated, on the ground that it was done without giving him an opportunity of hearing. It was the petitioner’s case that Pattamundai Municipality had invited a tender in the year 2016 from W.P.(C) Nos.31241 and 24316 of 2023 Page 4 of 11 the intending organizations to perform sanitation work including street sweeping, drain cleaning, roadside-bush cutting, door to door waste collection, dish infection in the Pattamundai Municipality area. The petitioner was allotted the work, he having been found to be the lowest bidder. Subsequently, in the year 2018, again a tender was invited for the same work. The petitioner participated and was declared lowest bidder, and accordingly the work was allotted to it. The petitioner continued the work so allotted thereafter. On 20.07.2022, the Pattamundai Municipality again invited tender for performing the same sanitation work. According to the petitioner, he had submitted its bid, which was not opened on 04.08.2022. It has been pleaded in the writ application that the petitioner was informed after a long time that its bid was rejected during the technical evaluation. Subsequently, it came to the petitioner’s knowledge that the said tender process was cancelled by opposite party No.2. Therefore, the petitioner did not challenge the said cancellation of its bid by opposite party No.2. He has also asserted that the petitioner was allowed to do the sanitation work within the Pattamundai Municipal area. 5. It is noteworthy that these averments are vague inasmuch as there is no disclosure as to when did he learn and from whom about the W.P.(C) Nos.31241 and 24316 of 2023 Page 5 of 11 cancellation of bidding process and rejection of his bid during the course technical evaluation. 6. It is further pleaded in the writ application that the letter dated 19.07.2023 issued by the authority of Pattamundai Municipality issued fifteen days pre-termination of contract notice to the petitioner, in the light of the terms and conditions and stipulation of Clause-12 of the agreement dated 29.09.2018 was received by the petitioner on 23.07.2023, which the petitioner challenged in the said W.P.(C) No.24316 of 2023. 7. The said writ application [W.P.(C) No.24316 of 2023] was taken up by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 02.08.2023 and an ex parte interim order was passed by this Court in I.A. No.11682 of 2023 to the following effect:- xxx “xxx 2. It is observed, in the event Annexure-3, i.e., letter no.2364 dated 19.7.2023 issued by O.P.2 has not been given effect to, same shall not be given effect for a period of four weeks.” xxx 8. Soon thereafter, on 22.09.2023, during the pendency of the said writ application, the petitioner filed the other writ application i.e. W.P.(C) No.31241 of 2023 seeking quashing of the decision of the W.P.(C) Nos.31241 and 24316 of 2023 Page 6 of 11 Tender Committee dated 28.10.2022 whereby the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected. In W.P.(C) No.31241 of 2023, there is no whisper about the petitioner having filed the aforementioned writ application i.e. W.P.(C) No.24316 of 2023 in which the petitioner had obtained an interim order. As the second writ application related to a challenge to a tender process, it was placed before a Division Bench. The Division Bench did not have any reason or basis to know about the filing of another writ application i.e. W.P.(C) No.24316 of 2023 when W.P.(C) No.31241 of 2023 was taken up. This fact was intentionally suppressed. Only after a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 that this Court could learn about the fact that the petitioner had filed another writ application wherein the petitioner had obtained an ex parte interim order, in relation to the selfsame work of sanitation. 9. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has made elaborate arguments to question the decision of the Tender Committee, rejecting the petitioner’s bid document on the ground that the petitioner had not complied with the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. W.P.(C) Nos.31241 and 24316 of 2023 Page 7 of 11 10. We are, however, not inclined to entertain such submissions in view of the manifest conduct of the petitioner in suppressing material facts from the Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are of the considered opinion that the petitioner intentionally suppressed the material fact as regards filing of the earlier writ application wherein the petitioner had obtained an interim order. 11. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reminded that a litigant approaching the Court of equity must come with clean hands and in case any suppression is noticed, the Court should reject such application in limine without considering the merits of the case. 12. Reference may be made in this regard to the Supreme Court’s decision in case of Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449 wherein the Supreme Court has stated in no uncertain terms that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant W.P.(C) Nos.31241 and 24316 of 2023 Page 8 of 11 materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. 12.1. In the case of V. Chandrasekharan and another v. Administrative Officer and others reported in (2012) 12 SCC 133, the Supreme Court, deprecating the conduct of the party has held that the judicial process cannot become an instrument of oppression or abuse, or a means in the process of the court to subvert justice, for the reason that the court exercises its jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice. Paragraphs 44, 45 and 48 of the said decision are being reproduced hereinbelow: “44. The appellants have not approached the court with clean hands, and are therefore, not entitled for any relief. Whenever a person approaches a court of equity, in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, it is expected that he will approach the said court not only with clean hands but also with a clean mind, a clean heart and clean objectives. Thus, he who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem, means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by causing loss or (Vide Ramjas Foundation v. Union of to injury India [1993 Supp : AIR 1993 SC 852] , Noorduddin v. K.L. Anand [(1995) 1 SCC 242] and Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 1 SCC 134 : AIR 1997 SC 1236] .) (2) SCC 20 another. judicial process cannot become an 45. The instrument of oppression or abuse, or a means in the process of the court to subvert justice, for the reason that the court exercises its jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice. The interests of justice and public interest coalesce, and therefore, they are very often one and the same. A petition or an affidavit containing a misleading and/or an inaccurate statement, only to achieve an ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse of process of the court. xxx xxx xxx 48. In Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira [(2012) 5 SCC 370 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 126] this Court W.P.(C) Nos.31241 and 24316 of 2023 Page 9 of 11 its