# ANDANR v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS

- **Citation:** [2007] 12 S.C.R. 933
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2007-12-05
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5637 of 2007
- **Bench:** S.B. Sinha, J.M. Panchal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/andanr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-22321
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950--Article 226-Writ petition-Filing
of-Suppressing material fact-Maintainability of-Writ petition c
suppressing the fact that previously four writ petitions filed on same
cause of action-One such petition filed under Public Interest Litigation
challenging constitutionality of provision of Khadi & Village Industries
Board Act-Held: Writ remedy being equitable in nature, to be taken
·1
recourse to with clean hands-Taking recourse to such remedy over D
and over again amounts to abuse of process of law-On facts, writ
petitioner had filed all the writ petitions on same cause of actionPIL was also pertaining to same issue-Hence not maintainableUttar Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960-s. 35A.
Appellant-Samiti defaulted in payment of loans. Recovery E
proceedings were initiated. Several Writ Petitions were filed by the
appellant, questioning recovery proceedings. It also filed a Public
Interest Litigation wherein appellant No.2 was made a party,
questioning the constitutionality of Section 35A ofU.P. Khadi and
F
_,
Village Industries Board Act, 1960. Other Writ Petitions were also
filed by the appellant. Fresh recovery proceedings were initiated.
Fresh Writ Petition was filed there against. The petition was
dismissed by High Court holding that the Writ Petition was not
maintainable as the same was filed suppressing the material fact viz.
filing of previous Writ Petitions on the same cause of action. Hence G
the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
933
H
934
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 12 S.C.R.
A
HELD: 1.1. Although the prayers made in the four writ
applications are apparently different, having gone through the writ
applications, it became evident that the core issue in each of the
matter centers round recovery of the amount advanced to the
appellants by the Bank. Evidently, orders passed in different stages
B of the proceedings as also new proceedings based upon fresh
calculation on interest on the principal sum had been in question from
time to time. Even a Public Interest Litigation was filed wherein
appellant No. 2 was a party. May be that validity of Section 35A of
the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960 was one of
c the issues raised therein, but the recovery proceeding even was the
subject matter thereof. [Para 9] [937-C, D, E]
Arunima Baruah v. Union of India and Ors., [2007) 6 SCC 120,
relied on.
D
1.2. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their counter-affidavit have
drawn attention of the Court to an order passed by the high Court in
a Writ Petition wherein it was observed that this was the sixth Writ
Petition against recovery. The said Writ Petition have also been
dismissed. In the said counter-affidavit, it has further been disclosed
E that after being unsuccessful in their attempt to stall the recovery
proceedings against the Samiti, a fictitious welfare Sanstha, namely,
Udhyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha was started by
Appellant No. 2. [Paras 12, 13 and 14] [938-C, D, E; 939-C]
1.3. The attempt on the part of the appellants herein must be
F termed as 'abuse of the process oflaw'. A writ remedy is an equitable
one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair
of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact,
but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and
over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. Such a
G repeated filing of Writ Petitions amounts to criminal contempt.
[Para 15) [939-C, D, E)
Advocate General. State of Bihar v. A1/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair
Industries and A nr., [1980) 3 SCC 311, relied on.
H
2. In the Public Interest Litigation, Section 35A of the U.P.
•
·'"1
UDYAMIEVAMKHADIGRAMODYOGWELFARE
935
SANSTHA v. STATE[SINHA,J.]
Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960 was challenged on the A
premise that even the cooperative societies were required to take
recourse to the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks
and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Such a contentio

## Text

A
UDY AMI EV AM KHADI GRAMODYOG \.VELF ARE SANSTHA
A
ANDANR.
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
DECEMBER 5, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950--Article 226-Writ petition-Filing
of-Suppressing material fact-Maintainability of-Writ petition c
suppressing the fact that previously four writ petitions filed on same
cause of action-One such petition filed under Public Interest Litigation
challenging constitutionality of provision of Khadi & Village Industries
Board Act-Held: Writ remedy being equitable in nature, to be taken
·1
recourse to with clean hands-Taking recourse to such remedy over D
and over again amounts to abuse of process of law-On facts, writ
petitioner had filed all the writ petitions on same cause of actionPIL was also pertaining to same issue-Hence not maintainableUttar Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960-s. 35A.
Appellant-Samiti defaulted in payment of loans. Recovery E
proceedings were initiated. Several Writ Petitions were filed by the
appellant, questioning recovery proceedings. It also filed a Public
Interest Litigation wherein appellant No.2 was made a party,
questioning the constitutionality of Section 35A ofU.P. Khadi and
F
_,
Village Industries Board Act, 1960. Other Writ Petitions were also
filed by the appellant. Fresh recovery proceedings were initiated.
Fresh Writ Petition was filed there against. The petition was
dismissed by High Court holding that the Writ Petition was not
maintainable as the same was filed suppressing the material fact viz.
filing of previous Writ Petitions on the same cause of action. Hence G
the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
933
H
934
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 12 S.C.R.
A
HELD: 1.1. Although the prayers made in the four writ
applications are apparently different, having gone through the writ
applications, it became evident that the core issue in each of the
matter centers round recovery of the amount advanced to the
appellants by the Bank. Evidently, orders passed in different stages
B of the proceedings as also new proceedings based upon fresh
calculation on interest on the principal sum had been in question from
time to time. Even a Public Interest Litigation was filed wherein
appellant No. 2 was a party. May be that validity of Section 35A of
the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960 was one of
c the issues raised therein, but the recovery proceeding even was the
subject matter thereof. [Para 9] [937-C, D, E]
Arunima Baruah v. Union of India and Ors., [2007) 6 SCC 120,
relied on.
D
1.2. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their counter-affidavit have
drawn attention of the Court to an order passed by the high Court in
a Writ Petition wherein it was observed that this was the sixth Writ
Petition against recovery. The said Writ Petition have also been
dismissed. In the said counter-affidavit, it has further been disclosed
E that after being unsuccessful in their attempt to stall the recovery
proceedings against the Samiti, a fictitious welfare Sanstha, namely,
Udhyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha was started by
Appellant No. 2. [Paras 12, 13 and 14] [938-C, D, E; 939-C]
1.3. The attempt on the part of the appellants herein must be
F termed as 'abuse of the process oflaw'. A writ remedy is an equitable
one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair
of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact,
but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and
over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. Such a
G repeated filing of Writ Petitions amounts to criminal contempt.
[Para 15) [939-C, D, E)
Advocate General. State of Bihar v. A1/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair
Industries and A nr., [1980) 3 SCC 311, relied on.
H
2. In the Public Interest Litigation, Section 35A of the U.P.
•
·'"1
UDYAMIEVAMKHADIGRAMODYOGWELFARE
935
SANSTHA v. STATE[SINHA,J.]
Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960 was challenged on the A
premise that even the cooperative societies were required to take
recourse to the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks
and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Such a contention has expressly
been rejected by this Court. [Para 10) [937-E, F)
Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd and B
Ors., [2007) 6 SCC 236, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5637 of
2007.
From the Judgment and final Order dated 19.7.2006 of the High c
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ
Petition No. 4274(M/B) of2006.
Uma Datta for the Appellants.
Girdhar G. Upadhyay, Vinita G. Upadhyay, Syed Ali Ahmed, Syed D
Tanweer Ahmed, Vijay Kumar Pandita, Asha Upadhyay, RD. Upadhyay,
G.K. Srivastava, Sarwa Mittar (for Mitter & Mitter Co.), S. Wasim A.
Qadri, Rajiv Dubey, Jubair Ahmad Khan and Kamlendra Mishra forthe
Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Extent of Superior Courts' jurisdiction to dismiss a writ petition
for alleged suppression of material fact is involved in this appeal which F
arises out of a judgment and order dated 19.07.2006 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in WP No.
4274 (M/B) of2006.
3. Basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.
Appellant is a cooperative society (Samiti). It applied for loan for
establishment of an industry for manufacturing 'Aluminum Pottery' from
the respondents. A loan of Rs. 5,24,000/- was sanctioned in the year
1991. A Sum of Rs. 3,09,000/- was released by the respondents. Again,
G
a sum of Rs. 90,0001- was sanctioned in 1996. It filed an application for H
936
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007) 12 S.C.R.
A grant of loan of Rs. 22,00,000/- under the 'Consortium Bank Credit
Scheme' for establishing an unit for manufacturing P.V.C. Shoe Sole. A
sum of Rs. 16,20,000/- was sanctioned and Rs. 13,20,0001- was
released. The Samiti allegedly defaulted in making payments. Recovery
proceedings were initiated against the Samiti. Several writ petitions were
B filed by it questioning the legality thereof.
4. A purported public interest litigation was also filed wherein Suresh
Chandra Sharma (Appellant No. 2 herein) was also a party; praying for
the following reliefs:
c
"(i) to hold the provisions of Section 35A of the U.P. Khadi &
Village Industries Board Act, 1960 ... to be unconstitutional and
declaring the same ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14, 21
and 300A of the Constitution oflndia;
D
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to
quash the recovery certificates dated 14.9.05, 19.7.05 and
10.9.2002 contained inAnnexures Nos. 4,5 and 6 issued by U.P.
Khadi and Gramodyog Board, Lucknow.
(iii) issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
E
commanding the opposite party Nos. 2,3 and 4 to get recovery
of amount due against the members of Petitioners society through
due process of law other than recovery the same as arrears of land
revenue ... "
5. It appears some other writ petitions were also filed by the
F appellant, as would appear from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
the respondents.
However, fresh recovery proceeding had been initiated which were
not the subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions filed by the
G Appellant before the High Court.
H
6. A fresh writ petition was filed. The same has been dismissed by
reason of the impugned judgment holding that the appellants have
suppressed the material fact, viz., filing of four writ petitions on the same
cause of action and, thus, it was not maintainable. Appellants are, thus,
.. ..I,
UDYAMIEVAMKHADIGRAMODYOGWELFARE
SANS IHA v. ST ATE [SINHA, J.]
before us.
937
A
7. Mr. Uma Datta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants, would submit that the statement made by the writ petitioners
that no other writ petition was filed on the same cause of action was
correct as from a perusal of the four writ applications, reference whereof B
was made by the High Court in its impugned judgment, it would appear
that they were filed on different causes of action.
8. Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri and Mr. Girdhar G. Upadhyay, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand,
submitted that in different writ petitions, the petitioners questioned the C
recovery proceedings, citations and sale of the property, as orders were
passed at different stages of the same recovery proceedings.
9. Although the prayers made in the four writ applications are
apparently different, having gone through the writ applications, it became
'"'
evident that the core issue in each of the matter centers round recovery D
of the amount advanced to the appellants by the bank. Evidently, orders
passed in different stages of the proceedings as also new proceedings
based upon fresh calculation on interest on the principal sum had been in
question from time to time. As indicated hereinbefore, even a public interest
litigation was filed wherein also Appellant No. 2 was a party. Maybe that E
validity of Section 35A of the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board
Act, 1960 was one of the issues raised therein but even the recovery
proceeding was the subject matter thereof.
10. In the public interest litigation, Section 35A of the U.P. Khadi F
and Village Industries Board Act, 1960 was challenged on the premise
that even the cooperative societies were required to take recourse to the
provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial
Institutions Act, 1993. Such a contention has expressly been rejected by
this Court in Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex G
(P) Ltd. and Ors., [2007] 6 SCC 236.
11. As the law operating in the field has recently been laid down by
this Court in Arunima Baruah v. Union of India and Ors., [2007] 6
sec 120 in the following terms, it is not necessary to reiterate the same
overagam.
H
A
B
c
938
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 12 S.C.R.
However, therein in the peculiar fact of the matter, it was observed:
"20. In this case, however, suppression of filing of the suit is no
longer a material fact. The learned Single Judge and the Division
Bench of the High Court may be correct that, in a case of this
nature, the court's jurisdiction may not be invoked but that would
not mean that another writ petition would not lie. When another
writ petition is filed disclosing all the facts, the appellant would be
approaching the writ court with a pair of clean hands, the court at
that point of time will be entitled to determine the case on merits
having regard to the human right of the appellant to access to justice
and keeping in view the fact that judicial review is a basic feature
of the Constitution oflndia."
12. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their counter-affidavit have drawn
our attention to an order dated 12.06.2003 passed by the high Court in
D writ petition No. 25359 of2003 wherein it was observed:
r
"this is the sixth writ petition against recovery. In the fifth Writ
Petition No. 22933 of 2003, auctions ofresidential houses No.
22 has been stayed by this Court. Now the other properties are
sought to be auctioned/sold. I do not find any prima facie case
E
made out to interfere in the matter of recovery at this stage"
F
G
H
13. The said writ petition have also been dismissed by an order
dated 06.12.2005 by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
14. In their counter-affidavit, the respondents stated:
"21. That in reply to the events mentioned against 03.06.2003 and
09.06.2003 it is submitted that the sale proclamation was necessary
legal proceeding since even after citation had been issued, the
payment of the amount under recovery had not been made. In this
view of the matter, the writ petition which was of the same nature
as the earlier writ petitions was not only misconceived but was also
abuse of process of court by the Samiti. It is pertinent to state here
that the recovery certificates which were issued on 14.09.2005 and
19.07.2005 since by that time. the further interest on the loan
amount had accrued which required issue of fresh recovery
UDY AMI EV AMKHADI GRAMODYOG WELFARE
939
SANSTHA v. STATE[SINHA,J.]
certificates. However, the recovery certificates dated 10.09.2002 A
had been issued earlier before filing of the writ petition. In view of
the facts, it is submitted that there was no occasion for the petitioner
no. 2 joining hand with so-called Sanstha, the petitioner no. 1
challenged these recovery certificates. The challenge, which was
made by the petitioners before the Lucknow Bench, Allahabad, B
High Court was clearly an abuse of the process of Court."
In the said counter-affidavit, it has further been disclosed that after
being unsuccessful in their attempt to stall the recovery proceedings against
the Samiti, a fictitious welfare Sanstha, namely, Udhyami Evam Khadi
Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha was started by Appellant No. 2.
C
We, therefore, are of the opinion that the attempt on the part of the
appellants herein must be termed as 'abuse of the process of law'.
15. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a
superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should D
not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the
legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the
process of law.
In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. Mis. Madhya Pradesh E
Khair Industries and Anr., [1980] 3 SCC 311, this Court was of the
opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal
contempt.
16. For the reasons aforementioned, there is not merit in this appeal
which is dismissed accordingly with costs. Counsel's fee quantified at Rs. F
50,000/-
K.K.T.
Appeal dismissed.