1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI

WRIT PETITION NO.33756/2011 (GM-RES-PIL)

BETWEEN MR. K. SUBRAMANYAM SASTRY, S/O SHRI K. PATINJALI SASTRY,

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.45/1/146, K.P.ROAD, ONGALE-523001, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-AP, CAMP AT: BANGALORE. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI K S PERIYA SWAMY, ADV., FOR M/S.SOCIO LEGAL CLINIC, ADVS.,) AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC

GRIEVANCES AND PENSION, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001.

2. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR

BANGALORE-560032. REP BY ITS DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL

OF POLICE & HEAD OF BRANCH CBI-ACB

R

2

3. M/S. BEML LIMITED, SAMPANGI RAM NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 027 REP BY ITS: PAID CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR VRS. NATARAJAN.

4. MR. VRS.NATARAJAN, [PAID: CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR] M/S. BEML LIMITED, SAMPANGI RAM NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 027.

5. MR. PITCHAIAH, [PAID: DIRECTOR-FINANCE] M/S. BEML LIMITED, SAMPANGI RAM NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 027.

6. MR. SATHISH KUMAR TIKKU, [PAID: GENERAL MANAGER] M/S.BEML LIMITED, TRADING DIVISION, UNITY BUILDINGS, 4TH FLOOR, J.C. ROAD,

BANGLAORE – 560 002. 7. MR. SHANKAR BHATTACHARJEE, [PAID: ASST. GENERAL MANAGER,] M/S. BEML LIMITED, TRADING DIVISION,

UNITY BUILDINGS 4TH FLOOR, J.C. ROAD BANGALORE – 560 002. 8. MR. S. PIRAMA NAYAGAM, [PAID: GENERAL MANAGER-AUDIT] M/S.BEML LIMITED,

SAMPANGI RAM NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 027. 9. MR. G.SUDHINDRA, PARTNER, M/S RAO ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS,

NO. 17/1, SESHADRI ROAD,

3

GANDHINAGAR,

BANGALORE – 560 009. 10. MR. IVAN SINGH, SOLE PROPRIETOR, M/S. ACTION GROUP ASSOCIATES, NO.S6, THE GREAT LANDSCAPE,

GROUND FLOOR, BEHIND MAHALAXMI TEMPLE, PANAJI, GOA – 403 001. 11. M/S. BEML MIDWEST LIMITED, C/O. M/S. BEML LIMITED,

REGIONAL OFFICE AT: 3-6-114, HIMAYAT NAGAR, HYDERABAD – 500 029. REPRESENTED BY ITS: PAID: CHAIRMAN VRS.NATARAJAN.

12. MR. M. PICHAIAH, PAID: DIRECTOR, M/S. BEML MIDWEST LIMITED, C/O. M/S. BEML LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE AT: 3-6-114, HIMAYAT NAGAR,

HYDERABAD – 500 029. 13. MR. M.POONGAVANAM, PAID: DIRECTOR, M/S. BEML MIDWEST LIMITED C/O. M/S. BEML LIMITED,

REGIONAL OFFICE AT: 3-6-114, HIMAYAT NAGAR, HYDERABAD – 500 029. 14. M/S. M.K. DANDEKER & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 244, ANGAPPA NAICKEN STREET,

CHENNAI – 600 001. 15. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KRISHNAPATNAM POST, D.NO.24/385, 4TH FLOOR, AARYA TOWERS

NELLORE – 524 003.

4

16. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM – 530 035. 17. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE,

ICE HOUSE, EDC COMPLEX, PATTO OLAZA, PANAJI, GOA – 403 001. 18. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, HYDERABAD

KENDRIYA SADAN, HYDERABAD – 500 195. 19. THE BENCH OFFICER, COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI BENCH,

UTI BUILDINGS, 29, RAJAI SALAI, CHENNAI – 600 001. 20. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, TAMILNADU

SHASTRI BHAWAN, HADDOWS ROAD, CHENNAI – 600 034. 21. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KARNATAKA, KENDRIYA SADANA,

KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560 034. 22. MRS. SHANTHI NATARAJAN, [W/O. VRS.NATARAJAN] DIRECTOR, M/S. CHAMPION TEXTILES LIMITED,

[CIN: U17111KA1995PLC054023] BEML HOUSE AT NO.256, 1ST CROSS, DEFENCE COLONY, HAL – II STAGE INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 038.

5

23. MS. RADHA REKHA NATARAJAN, [D/O. VRS.NATARAJAN], DIRECTOR, M/S. CHAMPION TEXTILES LIMITED, [CIN: U17111KA1995PLC054023] BEML HOUSE AT NO.256, 1ST CROSS, DEFENCE COLONY,

HAL – II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 038. 24. MS. MADHUMITHA NATARAJAN, [D/O. VRS.NATARAJAN], DIRECTOR, M/S. CHAMPION TEXTILES LIMITED,

[CIN: U17111KA1995PLC054023] BEML HOUSE AT NO.256, 1ST CROSS, DEFENCE COLONY, HAL – II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 038.

25. MRS. SULLUR NAGAPPAN THENMOLLI, DIRECTOR, M/S. CHAMPION TEXTILES LIMITED, [CIN: U17111KA1995PLC054023] NO.181, SINGAI NAGAR, SINGANALLUR, COIMBATORE – 641 005.

26. MR. B.R. SUBRAMANYAM REDDY, [PAID CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER] M/S. BEML LIMITED, SAMPANGI RAM NAGAR, BANGLAORE – 560 027.

27. MR. P. HAINADHA BABU, DIRECTOR, M/S. BEML MIDWEST LIMITED, 8-2-684/3-55, SRINIVASA NILAYAM, BANJARA GREEN COLONY, ROAD NO. 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD – 500 034.

28. MR. M. AJA BABU, DIRECTOR, M/S. BEML MIDWEST LIMITED, FLAT NO. 304, SAI SURABHI AWAS APARTMENTS, MADHRANAGAR COLONY,

HYDERABAD – 500 093.

6

29. MR. C. ANKI REDDY, DIRECTOR, M/S. BEML MIDWEST LIMITED, FLAT NO. 406 SAI SPURTHY ENCLAVE, VENKTAGIRI, YOUSUFGUDA,

HYDERABAD – 500 045. 30. MR. K.RAGHAVA REDDY, DIRECTOR, M/S. BEML MIDWEST LIMITED, FLAT NO.2 & 3 LA CREATIVE HEIGHTS,

8-2696/697, ROAD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD – 500 034. 31. MR. B. MUKUND REDDY, [EX.SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT,

M/S. BEML MIDWEST LIMITED], 23-1/2, PLOT NO. 2, SATHAVAHANA NAGAR, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD – 500 072.

32. M/S. MIDWEST GRANITE PVT. LIMITED, NO. 8-2-684/3/25 & 26, ROAD NO. 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD – 500 034. REPRESENTED BY ITS: CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR.

33. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS: CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, ROOM NO.320, III FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA,

BANGALORE – 560 001. 34. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN,

7

RACE COURSE ROAD,

BANGLAORE – 560 001. (R-3 TO 34 ARE IMPLEADED V/O DATED 30.01.2012) ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ANIYAN JOSEPH, ADV., FOR R-1, 18 & 21; SRI C H JADHAV, SR. ADV., A/W SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV., FOR R-2;

SRI S S NAGANAND, SR. ADV., FOR M/S.JUST LAW,

ADVS., FOR R-3 TO 8 & 26; SRI D L N RAO, SR. ADV., FOR SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, ADV., FOR R-4 & 11 TO 13; SRI P B RAJU, ADV., FOR R-9; SRI D. PRABHAKAR, ADV., FOR R-10; SRI S. NAGARAJU, ADV., FOR R-14;

SRI T M VEKATA REDDY, ADV., FOR R-15 TO 17; R-19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 & 32 ARE SERVED; SRI M M SWAMY, ADV., FOR R-22 TO 25; SRI R. DEVDAS, PRL.G.A. FOR R-33 & 34) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226

OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT

RESPONDENT NO.2 TO REGISTER REGULAR CASE/FIRST

INFORMATION REPORT AGAINST THE OFFENDER

M/S.BEML LTD., VRS. NATARAJAN, M/S.CHAMPION

TEXTILES LIMITED, BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND

SHAREHOLDERS OF M/S.CHAMPION TEXTILES LTD.,

BANGALORE & ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR

PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE

MADE THE FOLLOWING:

8

ORDER

D.H.WAGHELA, CJ (Oral) 1. This petition is filed as a public interest litigation with

a prayer to direct respondent No.2 to probe into the illegally

exported iron-ore in collusion with mining mafia to the tune

of Rs.118 crores by one Mr.V.R.S.Natarajan, CMD of

M/s.BEML Limited, Bangalore and others, in the financial

year 2007-2008, through M/s.BEML Limited, Bangalore,

without any authority under law and valid legal papers. It

is further stated in the petition itself that the petitioner is a

shareholder of M/s.BEML Limited, incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1956 and the Hon’ble President of India

holding more than 54% of equity shares of that Company is

stated to be a shareholder investing public money. The

petition is stated to have been filed without having any type

of personal interest. Originally, the petitioner has joined as

respondents, Union of India and the Central Bureau of

Investigation– Anti Corruption Branch, with the prayer to

direct respondent No.2 to register a regular case/FIR

against the offenders, including Board of Directors and

shareholders of M/s.Champion Textiles Limited, Bangalore

and also to direct respondent No.2 to periodically report the

9

action taken. During the pendency of the petition, the

petitioner has joined and furnished the details of

respondent Nos.1 to 34.

2. Respondent Nos.3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 26 have submitted

their statement of objections with the preliminary

submission to the effect that the petition is liable to be

dismissed in limine and that it is not maintainable against

any of the respondents. The other objections as far as they

are relevant for the present purpose are as under:-

“3. The Petitioner had previously filed a

writ petition in WP No.9386/2011, based on

certain observations in the very same report

of the CAG regarding the Respondents

recognising certain sales in alleged

contravention of the accounting standards,

praying, inter alia, for a direction to the

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to

reverse the inflated sales and to expedite the

investigation to expose offenders like Shri

V RS Natarajan, Chairman and Managing

Director and other senior functionaries of

Respondent No.3, to face the consequences

of their actions. The said writ petition was

disposed of with observation that it was not

possible for the Court to entertain prayers in

the nature made by the Petitioner in the writ

10

petition vide its order dated 16.03.2011. A

copy of the order is produced as

ANNEXURE-R1.

4. The Petitioner, thereafter, preferred

Criminal Petition 1917/2011 under Section

482 of the Cr. PC praying for a similar relief.

The said criminal petition was dismissed by

the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble

Court vide order dated 06.02.2012. The

Petitioner is expected to approach the

Hon’ble Court with clean hands. Copy of the

order is produced as ANNEXURE-R2.

5. The Advocate for the Petitioner is a

dismissed employee of the Respondent No.3

for major misconducts. The said Advocate

was first terminated from the services of the

Respondent No.3 on 7.11.1979 along with

four others. In terms of the settlement

arrived at between the Management and the

employees Union, the Advocate for the

Petitioner and others were taken into the

services of the Respondent No.3 Company

afresh. Thereafter, the Advocate for the

Petitioner continued with his illegal and anti

Company activities and was again dismissed

on 6th Sept. 2006 for proven acts of

misconducts. A copy of the order of

termination is annexed herewith and marked

11

as Annexure R-3. The Advocate for the

Petitioner challenged the said order of

dismissal by filing Application under Sec.

10(4)(A) before the Hon’ble 1st Additional

Labour Court at Bangalore in ID

No.525/2006 and the said Application was

heard and the Hon’ble Court held the

enquiry conducted by the 3rd Respondent

fair and proper. A copy of the order of the

Hon’ble Presiding Officer, I Addl. Labour

Court, Bangalore, is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure R-4.

6. The Advocate for the Petitioner is in the

habit of approaching various forums,

including this Hon’ble Court by filing

frivolous and vexatious applications on one

pretext or the other so as to see to it that the

productive time of the Executives of the 3rd

Respondent Company is spent

unproductively and with an ulterior motive

to damage the reputation of the 3rd

Respondent. Three criminal cases against

Shri K.S.Periyaswamy, the Advocate for the

Petitioner, viz., CC Nos.13779/06, 24686/06

and 39080/2010 are pending before the IX

Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bangalore, for offences punishable under

Sections 292(a), 294, 416, 419, 448, 503,

504, 506, 507 and 509 of Indian Penal Code,

12

where trials are in progress. Copies of the

documents relevant to the above stated

cases are annexed as Annexure R-5 (colly).

7. The above Criminal Cases against Shri

Periyaswamy, the Advocate for the Petitioner

herein, relate to making threatening calls to

4th Respondent, misbehaving with the

security personnel posted at the premises of

the 3rd Respondent, including the lady

Security Guard among the staff working

there, and for having sent obscene messages

to the vigilance portal of the 3rd Respondent

against the then lady Chief Vigilance Officer,

who was on deputation from the Indian

Railways. Apart from the above, recently, a

First Information Report (no.73/2011 dated

26.03.2011) was registered against Shri

Periyaswamy for giving false information to

the police that the 3rd Respondent was

burning the records/documents pertaining

to a case pending before this Hon’ble Court.

Shri Periyaswamy also regularly files

applications under the Right to Information

(RTI) Act, 2005 seeking information

concerning the Respondent BEML from

various authorities and its customers. He

has so far filed 119 Applications and also

many numbers of Appeals under the RTI Act,

2005 with the 3rd Respondent alone. The

13

reasons for Shri Periyaswamy’s animosity

towards the officials of 3rd Respondent are

apparent.

8. The Advocate for the Petitioner, in his

personal capacity, has made allegations very

similar to those in the instant writ petition in

a letter dated 25.12.2011 to the Additional

Director-General of Police, Crime

Investigating Department, Hyderabad. In

the said letter, Shri Periyaswamy complained

of inaction by the State authorities into

alleged complaints against the Answering

Respondents. A copy of this letter was

marked to Hon’ble President of India, the

Prime Minister, the Chief Minister of Andhra

Pradesh and the Union Defence Minister. In

view of the similarity in the allegations, it

appears that Shri Periyaswamy is also using

the Petitioner for oblique motives to ventilate

his own grievances against the Respondent

BEML and its management. A copy of the

letter dated 25.12.2011 is annexed here with

and marked as Annexure R-6.

9. While in service the Advocate for the

Petitioner was found associating with and

passing vital information to the Petitioner’s

in WP No.19511/2005(PIL) filed against the

3rd Respondent and others. Even the

14

Advocate for the Petitioner had filed Misc.

WP No.3236/2010 in WP No.19511/2005

(PIL) for impleadment on the ground that he

had written to the Joint Secretary, Ministry

of Defence, New Delhi demanding a detailed

probe into the supply order placed by the 3rd

Respondent with M/s.Tatra Sipox (UK)

Limited and that no action was taken. The

said writ petition was disposed of by this

Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 24.01.2011,

taking into account a memo filed on behalf of

the 3rd Respondent that it adopts a

prescribed comprehensive procedure to

procure goods in a transparent manner and

that it also follows the guidelines of the

Central Vigilance Commission issued from

time to time. The Misc. Writ Petition filed by

the Advocate for the Petitioner herein was

dismissed by this Hon’ble Court. A copy of

the order dated 24.01.2011 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court in WP No.19511/2005 is

annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure R-7.

10. However, the issue of Tatra Sipox has

again been raised by the Petitioner herein in

the instant writ petition without disclosing

the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in the

above said writ petition. Further, the

Advocate for Petitioner filed a Private

15

Complaint against the 4th Respondent herein

who is the Chairman & Managing Director of

3rd Respondent for the offences alleged to

have committed under Sections 499 & 500 of

I.P.C. during the reply given to the questions

asked by the Advocate for the Petitioner in

the 46th Annual General Body meeting of the

3rd Respondent. The Advocate for the

Petitioner, despite knowing that the offence

alleged is a Bailable offence, has filed a

frivolous petition objecting to the same and

making false and wild allegations against the

4th Respondent herein, which clearly proves

the personal vendetta of the Advocate for the

petitioner against the 3rd and 4th

Respondents. Copy of the said objection is

annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure R-8. In this regard, it is

submitted that the Advocate for the

Petitioner has distributed copy of a letter

said to have been sent to the Hon’ble

President of India and Prime Minister, again

making false allegations against the 4th

Respondent. A copy of the same is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure R-9.”

3. The above statement of objections is verified by an

affidavit dated 22.05.2012 and thereafter no rejoinder is

filed on the record. In view of the undisputed facts about

16

the litigations initiated by the petitioner against the same

Company on different occasions and for different reliefs, it

can be safely concluded that the petition is inspired by

personal motive of the petitioner and he has already filed a

number of litigations, some of which have been proven to

be frivolous and vexatious. Upon a specific query with

regard to the credentials and record of social service of the

petitioner, it is fairly conceded by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner does not have any other record

of taking up any cause by way of public interest litigation.

4. On the other hand, learned senior advocate appearing

for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not

only repeatedly made baseless allegations, but also put the

respondents to avoidable expenses by unnecessarily joining

them as respondents. He further submitted that, in view of

the observations made by the Apex Court in a number of

recent judgments, the petition is required to be dismissed

with appropriate strictures and an order of punitive cost.

Learned senior counsel relied upon DATTARAJ NATHUJI

THAWARE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

([2005]1 SCC 590) to point out that;

17

“A writ petitioner who comes to the

court for relief in public interest must

come not only with clean hands like

any other writ petitioner but also with

clean heart, clean mind and clean

objective. The court must not allow its

process to be abused for oblique

considerations by masked phantoms

who monitor at times from behind.

Some persons with vested interest

indulge in the pastime of meddling

with judicial process either by force of

habit or from improper motives, and

try to bargain for a good deal as well as

to enrich themselves. Often they are

actuated by a desire to win notoriety or

cheap popularity. The petitions of

such busybodies deserve to be thrown

out by rejection at the threshold, and

in appropriate cases with exemplary

costs.”

T.N.GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD (98) v. UNION OF

INDIA AND OTHERS ([2006)5 SCC 28) was relied upon for

the proposition that;

“Howsoever genuine a cause brought

before a court by a public interest

litigant may be, the court has to

18

decline its examination at the behest of

a person who, in fact, is not a public

interest litigant and whose bona fides

and credentials are in doubt.”

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGH CHAUFAL

AND OTHERS ([2010]3 SCC 402) was relied upon for the

observations made as under:

“174. A degree of precision and purity

in presentation is a sine qua non for a

petition filed by a member of the Bar

under the label of public interest

litigation. It is expected from a member

of the Bar to at least carry out the

basic research whether the point raised

by him is res integra or not. The

lawyer who files such a petition cannot

plead ignorance.

175. We would like to make it clear

that we are not saying that the

petitioner cannot ask the court to

review its own judgment because of

flaws and lacunae, but that should

have been a bona fide presentation

with listing of all relevant cases in a

chronological order and that a brief

description of what judicial opinion has

been and cogent and clear request why

19

there should be reconsideration of the

existing law. Unfortunately, the

petitioner has not done this exercise.

The petition which has been filed in the

High Court is a clear abuse of the

process of law and we have no doubt

that the petition has been filed for

extraneous considerations. The petition

also has the potentiality of demeaning

a very important constitutional office.

Such petition deserves to be discarded

and discouraged so that no one in

future would attempt to file a similar

petition.”

It is further contained in the clear directions

in paragraph 181 as under:

“181. (1) to (6) ……………….……………

(7) The Courts before entertaining the

PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed

at redressal of genuine public harm or

public injury. The Court should also

ensure that there is no personal gain,

private motive or oblique motive behind

filing the public interest litigation.

(8) The Courts should also ensure that

the petitions filed by busybodies for

extraneous and ulterior motives must be

20

discouraged by imposing exemplary

costs or by adopting similar novel

methods to curb frivolous petitions and

the petitions filed for extraneous

considerations.”

It is further observed by the Apex Court in P.R.NARAHARI

RAO v. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS ([2012]12 SCC

451) that:

“……The very fact that the Division

Bench of the High Court devoted time

to record an order running into 56

typed sheets and also the fact that this

Court has devoted many hours

including two hours hearing of today

indicates how a purely civil and private

litigation, camouflaged as a public

interest litigation, puts unnecessary

burden on the courts and results in

wastage of time which could otherwise

be devoted for those who are waiting

for years together with the hope that

some day they will get an opportunity

of hearing. This case is also illustrative

of how a litigant pursues two remedies

simultaneously and takes chance of

getting favourable result from one or

the other judicial forum.”

21

Lastly, the observations as under made by the Apex Court

in KISHORE SAMRITE v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

AND OTHERS ([2013]2 SCC 398) were relied upon for the

respondents:

“32. The cases of abuse of process of

court and such allied matters have

been arising before the courts

consistently. This Court has had many

occasions where it dealt with the cases

of this kind and it has clearly stated

the principles that would govern the

obligations of a litigant while

approaching the court for redressal of

any grievance and the consequences of

abuse of process of court. We may

recapitulate and state some of the

principles. It is difficult to state such

principles exhaustively and with such

accuracy that would uniformly apply to

a variety of cases. These are:

…..………………….

32.3. The obligation to approach the

court with clean hands is an absolute

obligation and has repeatedly been

reiterated by this Court.

………………..

22

32.5. A litigant who attempts to

pollute the stream of justice or who

touches the pure fountain of justice

with tainted hands is not entitled to

any relief, interim or final.

32.6. The court must ensure that its

process is not abused and in order to

prevent abuse of process of court, it

would be justified even in insisting on

furnishing of security and in cases of

serious abuse, the court would be

duty-bound to impose heavy costs.

……………………………..

36. The party not approaching the

court with clean hands would be liable

to be non-suited and such party, who

has also succeeded in polluting the

stream of justice by making patently

false statements, cannot claim relief,

especially under Article 136 of the

Constitution. While approaching the

court, a litigant must state correct

facts and come with clean hands.

Where such statement of facts is based

on some information, the source of

such information must also be

disclosed. Totally misconceived petition

amounts to an abuse of process of

23

court and such a litigant is not

required to be dealt with lightly, as a

petition containing misleading and

inaccurate statement, if filed, to

achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to

an abuse of process of

court.………………”

5. Examining the pleadings in the present case in light

of the above judicial dicta, it would clearly appear that the

petitioner has a particular agenda of his own of initiating

one after the other litigation against the respondents

herein, even after disposal of the earlier petition being Writ

Petition No.9386/2011 based on certain observations in the

very same report of CAG regarding the respondents and

praying inter alia for a direction to the CBI to reverse the

inflated sales and to expedite the investigation to expose

offenders. The petitioner has approached this Court once

again on the same facts and for practically the same reliefs.

It is not denied that the advocate for the petitioner is a

dismissed employee of respondent No.3 and hence, the

litigation can be inferred to have been pursued purely out

of personal motives. Under the circumstances, the petition

is required to be dismissed, without entering into any other

24

issue sought to be raised in the petition and only on the

ground of lack of bona fides and locus standi of the

petitioner.

6. As regards the imposition of punitive cost, as insisted

upon by the respondents, it was submitted by learned

counsel for the petitioner that the issue was taken up in

public interest by the petitioner and his counsel, without

any mala fide intention and he requested on that basis that

cost may not be imposed.

7. Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel

on either side, the petition is dismissed imposing a token

amount of cost of Rs.5,000/-, which shall be paid by the

petitioner to respondent No.3 within a period of one month.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE

bkv