tition Civil Nos
507 and 1260 of 1989
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
MK Ramamurthy Rajinder Sachhar Dr Francis Julion Ms Aruna Mathur A Mariarputham Ms section Dikshit section Va sudevan and Pradeep Misra for the Petitioners
For the Respondents Nemo
The following Order of the Court was delivered by 496 section RANGANATHAN J This order will dispose of a prelimi nary objection raised on behalf of the respondents that these writ petitions should be dismissed because the peti tioners have suppressed certain material facts from this Court and have also tried to abuse the process of court in the manner hereinafter appearing
Writ Petition No 507 of 1989 has been filed by the All India State Bank Officers  Federation hereinafter called the Federation  through its President
It was filed in this Court on 21st April 89 and was supported by an affida vit of Umed Singh President of the Federation affirming the contents of the petition to be true to his personal knowledge
By this writ petition the Federation seeks to impugn a new promotion policy decided upon by the State Bank of India hereinafter called the Bank 
In paragraph 9mm of the petition it is stated that the petitioners are ap proaching this Court in great haste as the Bank is moving with great speed and is likely to constitute Departmental Promotion Committees and declare the results of the inter views in implementation of the new promotion policy within the next two or three days
In the affidavit of Umed Singh referred to earlier it has been stated in para 4 that the petitioners have not filed any other similar writ petition in this Honourable Court or any other High Court
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Bank it is stated that the statement in paragraph 4 of the petition in support of the writ petition is false
It is pointed out that the Federation through its Deputy General Secretary had filed Writ Petition No 5286 of 1989 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad along with an application No 6969 of 1989 seeking stay of the promotion policy
On 13489 the Andhra Pradesh High Court admitted the writ petition but the learned judge rejected the application for interim stay observing that he was prima facie satisfied that the selection is going on according to a fair procedure and that there is no need to stay any of the interviews or the appointment
It is further pointed out that another petition has also been filed by the State Bank of India Officers  Association Karnataka having its office at Bangalore in the Karnataka High Court being Writ Petition No 7848 of 1989
It is therefore submitted that the petitioners have suppressed from this Court the material fact that a writ petition has already been filed by them in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and that an application for stay had been made and rejected by the said court
A second objection to the 497 maintainability
of the petition raised on behalf of the Bank in paragraph 3 of its counter affidavit was that since promotions had already been made they could not be disturbed as the promoted officers have not been made parties
It is common ground that 58 officers had been promoted wef
24th April 89 but no steps were taken to implead these officers who would be directly affected as a result of the prayer made in the writ petition
To these objections a rejoinder was filed on behalf of the petitioners supported again by an affidavit of Umed Singh on the 23rd of October 1989
The two objections raised by the Bank were sought to be refuted in the follow ing manner 1
That the contents of para 1 are denied and it is reiter ated that the writ petition is maintainable as there is clear violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners
The writ petition filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court has since been withdrawn as per the undertaking given to the Supreme Court during arguments on 24489
The deponent had no knowledge of the writ petition filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh hence as soon as it came to his knowledge the same has been withdrawn
Even otherwise the deponent understands that in the said writ petition the stay of interviews was prayed and the same was declined on representation made by the respondent bank
It is indeed regrettable that even before Hon ble High Court the bank made incorrect statements
A perusal of the order of High Court would show the same
Regarding the question of making such employees who have been promoted as a party respondent it is submitted that firstly it is the promotion policy which had been challenged being arbitrary discriminatory and framed in gross violation of the prescribed procedure and provisions of law secondly the petitioners even today do not know the names of all such 58 candidates who have been promoted favoured emphasis added It may be mentioned here that Writ Petition No 507 of 1989 came up for admission before a Bench of this Court on 26th April 1989
Apparently the counsel for the State Bank of India was present and accepted notice on behalf of the bank
The Bench passed the following order 498 Issue notice Mr SS Sharma learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the State Bank of India
Counter affida vit shall be filed within four weeks from today
Reply if any shall be filed within two weeks thereafter the matter will be placed for final disposal on 24101989 subject to overnight part heard
The promotion if given in the meantime will be subject to the decision in the writ petition
Mr KK Venugopal learned counsel states that the writ peti tion which has been filed before the High Court will be withdrawn The Writ Petition came on for hearing before us on 5th April 1990
Sri G Ramaswamy counsel for the Bank put the above objections in the forefront as preliminary objections
After hearing him and the counsel for the petitioner we directed the petitioner federation to file a better affida vit explaining the correct position
In compliance with the direction given by us another affidavit has been filed by Sri Umed Singh
In this affidavit again although purport ing to tender an unqualified apology for the misstatement in the earlier affidavit the deponent reiterated that he did not know on the date of swearing of the affidavit on 21489 that some other office bearer of the petitioner federation has filed such a petition
He claims to have come to know of it only on the 23rd April 1989 from a telephonic conversation with the Deputy Secretary and wishes to take credit for the fact that he at once informed his counsel about it who in turn brought it to the notice of the Court at the time of the preliminary hearing on 26th April 1989
The truth of these allegations is refuted on behalf of the Bank
It is submitted that the counsel for the petition er did not even at the time of hearing on 26489 bring to the notice of this Court the fact that he had filed a peti tion in the Andhra Pradesh High Court
On the other hand it is claimed it was the counsel for the Bank who was present and who took notice on behalf of the Bank that brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner had already moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court in regard to the same relief and it was only thereafter that the counsel for the petitioner made a statement that the petitioner would with drew the petition filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court
Even this it is pointed out they did not do immediately as stated in Umed Singh s affidavit for the said petition was withdrawn only much later on 27th of July 1989
On behalf of the Bank it is also pointed out that the statement made in the rejoinder filed by Umed Singh sup ported by his affidavit 499 that the addresses of the 58 promotees was not known to the petitioner is again a total falsehood as is demonstrated by two circumstances
In the first place in the writ petition filed in the Karnataka High Court the petitioner there has joined all the 58 officers as parties and an application was moved before the said High Court on 27th April 89 seeking stay of promotion of the said respondents
That apart on 1st May 89 a fortnightly bulletin issued by the State Bank of India Officers  Association Mumbai circle which is admitted to be one of the associations affiliated to the petitioner Federation carries a message of congratulations to all the 58 officers who had been promoted wef
24th April 89
The names of all the 58 officers so promoted has been set out in this bulletin
In this state of the record learned counsel for the Bank strongly urges that we should dismiss the writ petition straightaway on the ground that the petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands
We have heard learned counsel on both sides at length
There is no doubt left in our minds that the petitioner has not only suppressed material facts in the petition but has also tried to abuse judicial process
The explanation that the President of the Federation when he filed the writ in this Court on 21st April 89 was not aware that a petition had been filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court repeated for a second time in the affidavit of 5th April  90 is in our opinion is totally unacceptable
Admittedly the federa tion was considerably agitated by the new promotion policy
The matter was considered to be very urgent and the federa tion was too keen to obtain a stay of implementation of the policy which it feared
the Bank might do any day
In this situation not even the most gullible of persons would be credulous enough to accept the explanation that the Deputy General Secretary of the Federation had not apprised the President of their failure to obtain the stay order from the Andhra Pradesh High Court
It is totally unbelievable that between 13489 when the interim application in the Andhra Pradesh High Court was rejected and 21489 when the writ petition was filed the President was not aware of what had happened in the High Court
It is deplorable that such an explanation should have been not only put forward in the original rejoinder but should have been repeated again in the latest affidavit
The petitioner had in our opinion deliberately suppressed from the petition this crucial and important fact
As to the credit sought for having brought this fact to the notice of the Court on 25489
the circum stances suggest that perhaps they would not have brought it to the notice of the court at all had not counsel on behalf of the Bank been present
to receive notice 500 when the matter was moved for admission on 26489
whether as asserted by the counsel for the petitioner the petition er considered it prudent in view of the presence of the Bank s counsel to volunteer at the time of the said hearing the information that a petition had been filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and to offer an undertaking that it would be withdrawn or whether as alleged in a statement of facts  placed before us by Sri SS Sharma the learned counsel for the Bank who appeared at the hearing even this information had to be supplied to the Court by the Bank is a controversy into which we need not enter
We shall proceed on the assumption that the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner is correct but even that does not explain why a reference to the writ petition in the High Court was not made in the writ petition as it had to be made
The statement in the affidavit of Umed Singh that no petition had been filed in any High Court was clearly and plainly false
It is equally clear that the statement made in the rejoinder affidavit that till today ie 23rd October 1989 the petitioner federation is not aware of the names of the promoted officers is again an incorrect statement
These officers had been impleaded in the interim application for the relief sought against them in the Karnataka High Court as early as 27489
That apart the federation could not have been unaware of the contents of the bulletin issued by the Mumbai circle of the SBI Officer s Association issued on 1589
There is no doubt that the petitioner did not deliberately implead the 58 promoted officers
Sri Sachhar for the petitioner sought to contend that these 58 officers may be proper parties but not necessary parties and he referred us to the judgments of this Court in The General Manager South Central Railway Secunderabad and Another vs AVR Siddhantti and Ors and Col DD Joshi  Ors
vs Union of India  Ors
 1983 2 SCC 235
We are not here concerned with the question whether these officers were necessary or proper parties and indeed this issue is no longer alive as subsequently the peti tioner itself has undertaken to implead these 58 officers and notices have been issued to them in both the writ peti tions
What we are concerned here with is the statement in the rejoinder affidavit that the Federation was not aware of the names of the 58 officers till November 1989 which in the circumstances is a clear misstatement
Apart from misstatements in the affidavits filed before this Court the petitioner Federation has clearly resorted to tactics which can only be described as abuse of the process of court
The simultane 501 ous filing of writ petitions in various High Courts on the same issue though purportedly on behalf of different associ ations of the Officers of the Bank is a practice which has to be discouraged
Sri Sachhar and Sri Ramamurthy wished to pinpoint the necessity and importance of petitions being filed by different associations in order to discharge satis factorily their responsibilities towards their respective members
We are not quite able to appreciate such necessity where there is no diversity but only a commonness of inter est
All that they had to do was to join forces and demon strate their unity by filing a petition in a Single Court
It seems the object here in filing different petitions in different Courts was a totally different and not very laud able one
Again an attempt was made to obtain a stay in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and when that attempt failed the writ petition here was filed
In this the petitioners were able to obtain only an order that any promotions made during the pendency of the petition would be subject to the deci sion in the writ petition
But having obtained this order on 26489 it is curious and inexplicable that an affiliat ed association should have made an application on 27489 in the Karnataka High Court praying for a stay of the promo tions
These are only tactics that it will be indulged in by a chronic and compulsive litigant and not by a federation like the petitioner
We have set out the facts in this case at some length and passed a detailed order because we are deeply grieved to come across such conduct on the part of an association which claims to represent high placed officers of a premier bank of this country
One expects such officers to fight their battles fairly and squarely and not to stoop low to gain what can only be temporary victories by keeping away material facts from the court
It is common knowledge that of late statements are being made in petitions and affida vits recklessly and without proper verification not to speak of dishonest and deliberate misstatements
We therefore take this opportunity to record our strong and emphatic disapproval of the conduct of the petitioners in this case and hope that this will be a lesson to the present petition er as well as to other litigants and that atleast in future people will act more truthfully and with a greater sense of responsibility
The question that now remains to be considered is wheth er the petition is liable to be dismissed for this conduct of the President of the Federation
Sri Rajendra Sachhar appearing on behalf of the petitioners sought to get over the Bank s objections by addressing certain technical argu ments
He submitted that even if Writ Petition No 507 89 was liable to be dismissed for mis statement and suppression there 502 would be no reason to dismiss CWP No 1260 of 1989 which has been filed by another association of the same officers
He also sought to contend that since it had been brought to the notice of this Court on 26489 that a petition had been filed in a High Court and that it was being withdrawn the order passed by this Court on 26489 should be taken as having condoned any mis statement or mis conduct or defects in the writ petition
We are not inclined to accept these submissions
However it is not necessary to discuss this aspect further as we do not wish to penalise the various officers who may suffer as a consequence of the new policy which they wish to challenge for the misstatements or wrong steps taken by the Officers of the federation perhaps in their over anxiety to get quick interim relief
We do not wish to decline them an opportunity to put forward their grievances before the court by dismissing these writ peti tions on the preliminary objections raised by the Bank
In fact we should like to place on record our appreciation of the stand taken by Sri G Ramaswamy learned counsel for the Bank in this respect
He fairly stated that as he is ap pearing for a public sector undertaking he is quite pre pared to contest the writ petitions on their merits and that his preliminary objections were primarily intended to bring to our notice the conduct of the petitioners in this case
We are glad he did it as this was a matter which needed serious notice
We should like to record our dis approval of the way in which the proceedings have been conducted on behalf of the Federation
However as mentioned above we overrule the preliminary objections and will proceed to dispose of the writ petitions on their merits
The Writ Petitions are adjourned as per separate order to 17790 for further hearing


Summary:
In its industrial policy the State Government declared on 181961 that where power has to be generated by indus trialists themselves exemption from electricity duty would be granted for a period of five years from the date of plant goes into production and that the concession would be applicable only to new generating sets installed during the Third Plan period
The Respondent indicated to the Government on 351955 that about 5000 KW of electricity would be required by it to run its paper plant and that it would by itself make arrangements for obtaining the necessary generating equip ment
It also applied for import licence for the import of a production plant as also a power plant to run it
The import licence was granted and the Respondent started negotiation with the foreign supplier
Since the price had gone up it was rather impossible for the Respondent to import both the production plant and the power plant and if the power plant was not purchased along with the production plant it would make the project unsound
Hence the Respondent was in two minds whether to have the power plant or not
Meanwhile the above said industrial policy was announced and the Respond ent on installation of the power plant was able to start its production wef 1621965
Thereafter to formalise the matter the Respondent corre sponded 437 with the appellant for the grant of the requisite exemption which was rejected and the Respondent approached the High Court by way of a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
The High Court held that the Peti tioner was entitled to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel in order to claim exemption from payment of elec tricity duty for a period of five years from 1621965 in terms of the assurance of the State Government dated 181961
Against this order of the High Court the State has come in appeal by Special Leave
On behalf of the appellant State it was urged that there was no occasion to invoke the doctrine of promissory estop pel since the Respondent had not in any manner acted on the assurance of the Government to its own prejudice but on its own it was taking steps to set up a generating plant much before the industrial policy was announced
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD 1
Whether the respondent was of one mind right from the beginning to set up a power plant with or without the assurance of the State Government dated 181961 as asserted by the State is neither borne out nor is the view of the High Court arrived at from the record
On the con trary the view taken is that the respondent s indecision in that regard ended and it became decisive on the announcement of the assurance dated 181961
Such view of the High Court was a possible view to be taken on the material placed before it and the inference drawn therefrom could be that the respondent had acted on the basis of the assurance
441E F 2
This Court ordinarily does not interfere with factual findings arrived at by the High Court and this case has not been shown to be an exception
The view taken by the High Court was unexceptional warranting it to be left uninter ferred with
441F 3
Without commanding the State Government to issue such a Notification the High Court has granted relief to the respondent to which there was no bar
Accordingly no provi sion of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act 1949 or any other law can be said to have been transgressed
442A