1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.212 OF 2008 IN WRIT PEITION NO.948 OF 2000 Radha Raman Mandal & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. ....... Mr. S.S. Lanke i/b. Mr. M.R. Yadav for the Petitioners. Ms. A. Calcuttawala, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr. J.G. Reddy for Respondent No.2. Mr. Atul Rajadhyaksha, Senior Advocate with Mr. D. Brijesh i/b. A.S. Khandeparkar for Respondent No.6. Mr. Kedar Wagle i/b. Ms. Swati Sawant for Respondent No.10. ...... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & K. U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. May 15, 2008. P.C.: By an order of the Division Bench dated 12th December 2007, a batch of petitions was disposed of and liberty was granted to the Petitioners to approach the High Powered Committee which has been set up by the State Government in pursuance of the judgment of the Full Bench dated 1st November 2007 in Tulsiwadi Navnirman 2 Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition 1326 of 2007. The Division Bench reserved a period of four weeks for the Petitioners to approach the High Powered Committee. This Court has now been moved in a Notice of Motion which was taken out on 2nd May 2008 for extension of time to move the High Powered Committee. The application has been resisted by the Sixth Respondent principally on the ground that the basis on which the Petitioners have approached the Court is false to their own knowledge. There were 49 Petitioners in the writ proceedings before this Court in Writ Petition 948 of 2000. The First Petitioner is a person by the name of Radha Raman Mandal. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion, one of the grounds for extension of time is stated to be thus: “I say that pursuant to the order passed in Notice of Motion No.239/02 in W.P. 948/2000 dated 16.09.2002 by this Hon'ble Court, respondents had been directed to maintain status quo in all respects concerning the CTS No.455, but when all of sudden,they started carrying out the construction work in the 3rd week of April, 2008 at CTS No.455, then I inquired about the said matter with office of the Hon'ble High Court and thereafter came to know that 3 the said petition has already disposed of as stated above.” At the hearing of the Motion, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Sixth Respondent has placed on the record a letter dated 9th January 2008 which was addressed by the First Petitioner's son Deepak R. Mandal to diverse authorities, including the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. In paragraph 2 of the letter, there is a categoric statement that on the date of the letter i.e. 9th January 2008, the work of construction had already commenced. There is, therefore, merit in the submission of the Sixth Respondent that the averment in paragraph 3 of the affidavit in support that it was noticed in the third week of April that the construction had begun and when the First Petitioner enquired of the matter, he came to know that the petition had been disposed of is evidently false. The letter dated 9th January 2008 has been signed by as many as 13 applicants. In fact, it would be necessary to record that at the hearing of the Notice of Motion, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners is instructed by the same person, namely Deepak R. Mandal who is the first signatory to the letter dated 9th 4 January 2008. It is not disputed that the aforesaid letter, as a matter of fact, was addressed by the son of the First Petitioner. The First Petitioner who claims to hold a power of attorney was hence aware of the facts all along and has feigned ignorance. The basis of the prayer for extension is untrue. Ordinarily, and for valid reasons, Courts are liberal in condoning delay and in extending time, particularly when time has been sought for submitting a representation. Equally, the Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that representations by way of complaints against a large project are liable to obstruct the due and effective implementation of the project. The time of four weeks set by the order of the Division Bench must, therefore, be read in this context. A party which comes before the Court must make a truthful disclosure of the reasons for extension of time. A request for extension of time which is based on a disclosure which is untrue would not justify the exercise of discretion by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is in aid of justice. The Court would be disinclined to assist a party which has not made a fair and true disclosure of the facts. In these circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss the Notice of Motion. The Notice of 5 Motion shall accordingly stand dismissed. DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. VACATION JUDGE. K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. VACATION JUDGE.