1 8-wp-2781-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2781 OF 2011 Raje Sambhaji Shikshan and Krida Prasarak Mandal, through its Vice President, Solapur & Another .. Petitioners. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents. Mr. H.G.Wakshe, for Petitioners. Mr. V.L.Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. A.M.Joshi, for Respondent No.3. Mr. Anant Vadgaonkar, for Intervenor. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner-Management is challenging the order dated 28th January, 2010 passed by the Learned School Tribunal, Solapur in Appeal No.54 of 2009 2 8-wp-2781-11.sxw directing the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent No.3 on her original post and pay her the back wages with all consequential benefits. 3 The learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 raised preliminary issue about maintainability of Petition. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 states that earlier Petition No.3565 of 2010 was filed by the Head Master-Petitioner No.2 individually and the same was allowed to be withdrawn by this Court. He states that this Court did not grant liberty to the Head Master to file a fresh Petition. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3 further submits that Petitioner No. 1 who claims to be Vice President of the Trust has also no right to file the present Petition. He states that in the Appeal No.54 of 2009 filed before the Tribunal, he i.e. Shashikant S. Gaikwad preferred an application dated 17th August, 2009 for joining him as a party Respondent being the Vice President of the Trust. The said application was rejected by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal by order dated 24th September, 2009 passed below Exhibit- 21-A in Appeal No.54 of 2009. The learned Presiding Officer in paragraph 7 of the said order dated 24th September, 2009 held that Mr. Shashikant S. Gaikwad was not authorized to act as Vice President unless and until he brought certificate to that effect from the Charity Commissioner. Paragraph 7 of the order reads thus:- “ Para-7:- After hearing both the sides, this Court come to the conclusion that, it is submitted position that there is dispute in the management between secretary and members. 3 8-wp-2781-11.sxw It is also appears that, there is no decision of the Charity Commissioner yet stating that the objector No.1 is vice president and objector No.2 is the secretary of the institution and, therefore, unless and until the objector No.1 and 2 bring the certificate from Charity Commissioner's office that, they will also concern with the management, it is found that till then the objectors have no relevance in the instant proceeding. Accordingly, when it is seen that, the proper party who is fully representing the management made by the appellant in his appeal and they are representing the management properly and when the objectors not bring the change report from Charity Commissioner's showing that they are the secretary and the vice president respectively. Hence, there is no need to join such objectors as a party in the proceeding as prima facie it appears that the Charity Commissioner had yet not given any final report accepting the objectors as vice president and secretary respectively. Hence, on the above reasons, there is no substance and merit in the application and, therefore, the prayer to add as a party to the objector in the instant proceeding not found bonafide and, therefore, the application filed by the applicant requires to be rejected. Hence, I proceed to pass following order. Order 1) The application filed by applicants for joining them as a party in the proceedings stands rejected. 2) No order as to cost.” 4 The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 states that the present Writ Petition filed by Petitioner No.1 as a Vice President and the Petitioner No.2 as Head Master is not maintainable. 5 On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner submits that they filed present Petition after passing a resolution by board of trustees in their favour and, therefore, the present Petition is maintainable. He further submits that the Writ Petition No.3565 of 2010 4 8-wp-2781-11.sxw was withdrawn, because the same was filed by Petitioner No.2 in his capacity as Head Master. He submits that the Head Master had no authority to file Petition and, therefore, it was withdrawn. 6 I have gone through the affidavit in reply dated 20th April, 2011 filed by Respondent no.3, order dated 11th March,2011 passed by this Court (Coram: Smt. Justice N.N.Mhatre) in Writ Petition No.3565 of 2010 and the order dated 24th September, 2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal below Exhibit-21-A in Appeal No.54 of 2009. One thing is clear that the Petitioners have suppressed the fact about the filing of the application before the School Tribunal for joining Mr. Shashikant S. Gaikwad as party and the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer below Exhibit- 21-A dated 24th September, 2009. The Apex Court in the matter of Prestige Lights Limited v/s. State Bank of India, reported in 2007(8) SCC page-449 held that if the Appellant suppressed material facts at the time of filing Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, then it does not deserve any relief from the High Court. Paragraphs 33 and 34 of that authority reads thus:- “ Para – 33- It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have 5 8-wp-2781-11.sxw been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.” “ Para 34 - The object underlying the above principle has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commrs., in the following words: “[I]t has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief of an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts-facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it-the court is supposed to know the Law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside, any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement.” (emphasis supplied) As the Petitioner suppressed material facts mentioned above, the Petitioner, as has been held by the Apex Court, in the case of Prestige Lights Limited v/s. State Bank of India (supra), the relief claimed by the Petitioner can be refused. 7 Besides what is stated above, the Vice President- Mr. Shashikant S. Gaikwad was not a party before the School Tribunal and, therefore, there is no question of allowing him to file present Petition on behalf of the Trust, because, he failed to point out any subsequent development, as to whether the Charity Commissioner accepted him as a Vice President of the Trust. Without going into the merits of the Petition, Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground that (i) Petitioner suppressed the 6 8-wp-2781-11.sxw order dated 24th September, 2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer below Exhibit-21-A in Appeal No.54 of 2009 and (ii) previous Writ Petition was withdrawn without any liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition. 8 Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED, J.)