1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04/08/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD) No.7912 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 Arulvendan ... Petitioner Vs. The Principal, J.J. College of Engineering Technology, ISO 9001-2000 Certified Institution, Dindigul Road, Ammapatti, Poolankulathupatti Post, Tiruchirappalli - 620 009. ... Respondent Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue and complete the B.E. course final year in J.J. College of Engineering Technology, ISO 9001-2000 Certified Institution, Dindigul Road, Ammapatti, Poolankulathupatti Post, Tiruchirappalli-620009. For petitioner .. Mr.N.Balakrishnan For respondent .. Mr.R.Sundar ORDER A fourth year Civil Engineering student of J.J. College of Engineering and Technology, Ammapettai, Tiruchirappalli, has sought for a mandamus directing the College to permit the petitioner to continue and complete his final year B.E. course in the said College. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that a girl student was in talking terms and that was strongly objected to by her parents. He has further submitted that he was beaten by her parents and that happened in May, 2011. The parents of the girl student seemed to have preferred a complaint against the petitioner and the father of the petitioner was summoned to the College. The Principal has warned the petitioner. All these exercise was over in May, 2011 itself. All of a sudden, the respondent has sent the transfer certificate to the petitioner's native address. The action of the respondent in sending the transfer certificate, without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity to explain the stand of the petitioner, is violation of the principles of natural justice and such arbitrary action has been taken only to instil a sense of fear in the mind of the students community, ostensibly to enforce discipline, making him as sacrificial lamb. 3.The Principal of the J.J. College of Engineering and Technology, Ammapettai, Tiruchirappalli, has filed a detailed counter, along with supporting documents in the typed set of papers, wherein he has contended that a girl student viz., Ms.K.Priyadharshini, studying in III year B.E. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Course in Electronics and Instrumentation branch, had given a complaint on 06.04.2011 against the petitioner stating that he had misbehaved with her and that the said incident was informed to the petitioner's father. He further submitted that, as per the instructions contained in the College calendar (Hand Book) for the academic year 2010-2011, under the head "Conduct and Discipline", the students are required to give an undertaking at the time of joining the institute, as well as the beginning of the academic session to abstain from ragging, eve-teasing, quarrelling, smoking, use of alcoholic drinks, drugs and indulging in any other undesirable activity. As there was a prima facie case of gross indiscipline, bringing discredit to the name and fame of the institute, which is otherwise a centre of academic excellence and advanced learning, the petitioner was suspended on 09.04.2011 from the college with immediate effect, pending enquiry and without prejudice to appearance in the University Examinations. An enquiry committee was constituted on 09.04.2011 to enquiry into the charges, in which, Dr.T.Sivasankaran, Executive Director, was appointed as Convener and Dr.S.Sathiyamoorthy, vice Principal; Dr.I.Murugan, HoD/Civil, and Dr.K.Jayaraj, Director of Physical Education, were appointed as members of the committee and the committee, after conducting enquiry, held that the charges as proved and recommended for expulsion of the petitioner from the college. The convener has forwarded the report on 27.04.2011 to the Principal of the College. In the meantime, the girl student viz., Ms.K.Priyadharshini, has also given another complaint on 31.05.2011 against the petitioner stating that he has disturbed her repeatedly using unparliamentary words. The report of the committee was accepted and the petitioner was dismissed from the College on 18.06.2011. The father of the petitioner had requested the Principal to withhold the transfer certificate on 20.06.2011 and orally assured that the petitioner would apply for transfer to some other college and requested to kindly forward his application for transfer. He also requested the College not to issue the transfer certificate immediately. The College agreed to forward his transfer application, but the petitioner did not come and collect the transfer application before the expiry of the last date i.e., on 30.06.2011, as orally assured by the petitioner's father. The Director of Technical Education has given time upto 30.06.2011 for submitting transfer application form by the students. This was also informed to the petitioner and his father, but they have not submitted any application for transfer. In such circumstances, the transfer certificate, dated 20.06.2011, has been sent to the petitioner by registered post. The Principal of the respondent College has denied the contention that there was no enquiry and also the contention of denial of opportunity. For the above said reasons, the Principal of the respondent College has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5.The typed set of papers produced by the respondent shows that based on the complaint, dated 06.04.2011, on 09.04.2011 the Principal of the respondent College has suspended the petitioner for his gross indiscipline. Subsequently, on 09.04.2011 itself an enquiry committee has been constituted with the faculty members, as stated supra, to enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner on the complaint of Ms.K.Priyadharshini, III year B.E. (EIE) student and the said committee has forwarded his report to the Principal on 27.04.2011. In that report, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 committee, after examining the charges, found that there is a strong evidence, for the charges framed against the petitioner. Both the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyadharshini, III year B.E. (EIE) student, have been examined on 09.04.2011. After holding the charges as proved, the committee has recommended for expulsion. 6.Materials on record further shows that even after the report of the committee, the petitioner is alleged to have indulged in misconduct, for which, Ms.K.Priyadharshini, has sent another complaint on 31.05.2011. Perusal of the proceedings, dated 18.06.2011, of the Principal of the J.J. College of Engineering and Technology, Ammapettai, Trichirappalli, shows that the Principal of the said College, after considering the report, has dismissed the petitioner from the college and the petitioner has also been informed that the transfer certificate would be issued at the earliest. All the above aspects have been suppressed by the writ petitioner in the supporting affidavit. Powers exercised by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can be extended only to a persons who approach the Court with clean hands. 7. As regards suppression, useful reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Arunima Baruah v. Union of India reported in 2007 (6) SCC 120, wherein, at Paragraphs 11 to 14, it held as follows: "11. The court’s jurisdiction to determine the lis between the parties, therefore, may be viewed from the human rights concept of access to justice. The same, however, would not mean that the court will have no jurisdiction to deny equitable relief when the complainant does not approach the court with a pair of clean hands; but to what extent such relief should be denied is the question. 12. It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the relief. If the fact suppressed is not material for determination of the lis between the parties, the court may not refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands. But even if the said dirt is removed and the hands become clean, whether the relief would still be denied is the question. 13. In Moody v. Cox [(1917) 2 Ch. 71: (1916-17) All ER Rep 548 (CA)], it was held: (All ER pp. 555 I-556 D) It is contended that the fact that Moody has given those bribes prevents him from getting any relief in a court of equity. The first consequence of his having offered the bribes is that the vendors https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 could have rescinded the contract. But they were not bound to do so. They had the right to say “no, we are well satisfied with the contract; it is a very good one for us; we affirm it”. The proposition put forward by counsel for the defendants is: “It does not matter that the contract has been affirmed; you still can claim no relief of any equitable character in regard to that contract because you gave a bribe in respect of it. If there is a mistake in the contract, you cannot rectify it, if you desire to rescind the contract, you cannot rescind it, for that is equitable relief.” With some doubt they said: “We do not think you can get an injunction to have the contract performed, though the other side have affirmed it, because an injunction may be an equitable remedy.” When one asks on what principle this is supposed to be based, one receives in answer the maxim that anyone coming to equity must come with clean hands. I think the expression “clean hands” is used more often in the textbooks than it is in the judgments, though it is occasionally used in the judgments, but I was very much surprised to hear that when a contract, obtained by the giving of a bribe, had been affirmed by the person who had a primary right to affirm it, not being an illegal contract, the courts of equity could be so scrupulous that they would refuse any relief not connected at all with the bribe. I was glad to find that it was not the case, because I think it is quite clear that the passage in Dering v. Earl of Winchelsea [(1787) 1 Cox Eq Cas 318: 2 Bos & P 270], which has been referred to, shows that equity will not apply the principle about clean hands unless the depravity, the dirt in question on the hand, has an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for. In this case the bribe has no immediate relation to rectification, if rectification were asked, or to rescission in connection with a matter not in any way connected with the bribe. Therefore that point, which was argued with great strenuousness by counsel for the defendant, Hatt, appears to me to fail, and we have to consider the merits of the case. 14. In Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 16, pp. 874-76, the law is stated in the following terms: “1303. He who seeks equity must do equity.— In granting relief peculiar to its own jurisdiction a court of equity acts upon the rule that he who seeks equity must do equity. By this it is not meant that the court can impose arbitrary conditions upon a plaintiff simply because he stands in that position on the record. The rule means that a man who comes to seek the aid of a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 court of equity to enforce a claim must be prepared to submit in such proceedings to any directions which the known principles of a court of equity may make it proper to give; he must do justice as to the matters in respect of which the assistance of equity is asked. In a court of law it is otherwise: when the plaintiff is found to be entitled to judgment, the law must take its course; no terms can be imposed. * * * 1305. He who comes into equity must come with clean hands.—A court of equity refuses relief to a plaintiff whose conduct in regard to the subject-matter of the litigation has been improper. This was formerly expressed by the maxim ‘he who has committed iniquity shall not have equity’, and relief was refused where a transaction was based on the plaintiff’s fraud or misrepresentation, or where the plaintiff sought to enforce a security improperly obtained, or where he claimed a remedy for a breach of trust which he had himself procured and whereby he had obtained money. Later it was said that the plaintiff in equity must come with perfect propriety of conduct, or with clean hands. In application of the principle a person will not be allowed to assert his title to property which he has dealt with so as to defeat his creditors or evade tax, for he may not maintain an action by setting up his own fraudulent design. The maxim does not, however, mean that equity strikes at depravity in a general way; the cleanliness required is to be judged in relation to the relief sought, and the conduct complained of must have an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for; it must be depravity in a legal as well as in a moral sense. Thus, fraud on the part of a minor deprives him of his right to equitable relief notwithstanding his disability. Where the transaction is itself unlawful it is not necessary to have recourse to this principle. In equity, just as at law, no suit lies in general in respect of an illegal transaction, but this is on the ground of its illegality, not by reason of the plaintiff’s demerits.” (See also Snell’s Equity, 13th Edn., pp. 30-32 and Jai Narain Parasrampuria v. Pushpa Devi Saraf [2006 (7) SCC 756]" 8.Thus, it is well settled that an equitable remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked only when there is bona fide in the claim. When suppression is apparent, on the face of the record, no equity can be extended to the petitioner. The issuance of transfer certificate, under the abovesaid circumstances, has been explained https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 by the College. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, as if nothing has happened and that the College has acted in an arbitrary manner. Right to seek for continuance in the College arises only, when he continues as a student of the College. When he has been already dismissed from the College, for his misconduct, mandamus cannot be issued. As stated supra, the petitioner, who has approached this Court with unclean hands, is not entitled to relief sought for. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd ASST REGISTRAR ( AS ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR gcg TO: The Principal, J.J. College of Engineering Technology, ISO 9001-2000 Certified Institution, Dindigul Road, Ammapatti, Poolankulathupatti Post, Tiruchirappalli - 620 009. 1CC TO MR. R.SUNDAR, ADVOCATE, SR: 26309: DM:2011:AUGUST:09:: W.P.(MD) No.7912 of 2011 04.08.2011 6P:3C: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/