Judgment:
30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 1643/2014 & CM APPL.3425-3426/2014 Decided on :
13. 03.2014 IN THE MATTER OF M/S TRANS INDIA LOGISTICS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Swetank Shantanu, Mr. Pratap Shankar and Mr. S.K. Dubey, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate with Ms. Sampa Sengupta Ray and Mr. Tarak Khanna, Advocates CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.
(ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing of an order dated 18.02.2014 passed by the respondent No.4 informing it that the tenure of the lease period for the two lease contracts granted to it in respect of FSLR II and RSLR in train No.2626 had expired in one case, on 18.09.2010 and in the other case, on 19.01.2011 and therefore, it was not possible to consider its request for extension of the lease contract in terms of clause 18 of the agreement dated 05.03.2008 executed by the parties.
2. Mr. Pattjoshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner states that it was during the currency of the subject lease agreement that the petitioner had addressed a representation dated 15.03.2010 to the respondents seeking extension of the lease. However, the respondents had failed to reply to the said request made by the petitioner till as late as on 28.09.2010, when they had addressed a letter informing him that the competent authority had decided to extend the petitioner’s lease but with certain conditions as mentioned in Annexure P-4. It is submitted that as the conditions imposed in the said letter were contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement governing the parties and the directions issued in the Circular No.12/2006, the petitioner had written a letter dated 30.09.2010 to the respondents stating inter alia that he was entitled to extension of the contract in terms of the conditions stipulated in the original agreement. It is submitted by learned counsel that thereafter, a series of representations were made by the petitioner to the respondents on the same lines seeking extension of the contract but the respondents did not give any reply till as recently as on 18.02.2014, when the impugned letter was issued declining the petitioner’s request.
3. Mr. Jagjit Singh, counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance copy, disputes the aforesaid submissions made by the other side and states on instructions that the petitioner has deliberately withheld a letter dated 06.12.2010 addressed by the respondents to him on the issue of extension of the contract, wherein he was informed that since he had not accepted the conditions that were mentioned in the earlier letter dated 28.09.2010, the competent authority had decided not to extend the contract. He hands over a copy of the letter dated 06.12.2010 issued by the respondents that is taken on record.
4. Mr. Sowmen Bhowmik, the proprietor of the petitioner is present in Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been asked to obtain instructions from his client as to why the aforesaid letter has not been placed on record. The briefing counsel confirms the fact that his client had duly received the aforesaid letter dated 06.12.2010 but states that he had not revealed the same to him at the time of drafting the present petition.
5. Further, counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner has failed to point out that out of the two lease agreements executed with the petitioner, the lease in respect of RSLR in train No.2626 was duly extended by the respondents for a period of two years as the petitioner had duly complied with the conditions imposed by the respondents on him in its letter. In support of the said submission, learned counsel hands over a copy of the letter dated 20.01.2011 addressed by the respondents to the petitioner granting him extension of lease of 04 tons RSLR space in train No.2626 for a period of two years or till finalization of fresh tender, which was duly accepted by him. Curiously, even the aforesaid facts have not been mentioned in the writ petition. Though the petitioner had accepted similar terms and conditions imposed by the respondents in the letter dated 20.01.2011, there is not a whisper in the writ petition as to the fact that the petitioner had accepted the said extension on the conditions imposed by the respondents, except for making a passing reference to the letter dated 21.01.2011 in sub para (V)(k) of the writ petition.
6. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondents states that upon the expiry of the lease in respect of the subject train on 22.02.2011, a fresh contract was granted to a third party that was valid till 21.02.2014, and during the currency of the said contract, steps have been initiated by the respondents to float a fresh tender for inviting bids for executing a fresh lease in respect of the subject train and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present petition.
7. It is a settled law that when a party approaches the High Court and seeks the invocation of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it must place on record all the relevant facts before the Court without any reservation. In exercising its discretionary powers and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court not only acts as a court of law, but also as a court of equity. Therefore, in case there is a deliberate concealment or suppression of material facts on the part of the petitioner or it transpires that the facts have been so twisted and placed before the Court, so as to amount to concealment, the writ court is entitled to refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into the merits of the matter [Refer: Prestige Lights Ltd. vs. State Bank of India(2007) 8 SCC449.
8. In the case at hand, on a perusal of the petition including the list of dates and events and annexures, this Court finds that the petitioner has remained completely silent about the letter dated 6.12.2010 issued by the respondents rejecting the extension of the subject contract that was duly received by him. Moreover, the petitioner has concealed the fact that he had accepted the extension for the contract of leasing of 4 tonnes RSLR space in train No.2626 on the conditions imposed by the respondents vide letter dated 21.01.2011 which were on the same lines as contained in the letter dated 06.12.2010.
9. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner amounts to deliberate concealment of material facts from the Court, which itself is considered a sufficient ground for the Court to dismiss the present petition. The petitioner cannot expect equity to flow in his favour when he elects to approach the Court with unclean hands and states half truths and makes selective disclosures.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, while refraining from imposing substantial costs on the petitioner for intentionally failing to reveal all the necessary and material facts to the Court and deliberately failing to place on record the relevant documents, the present petition is dismissed with costs of `10,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre within two weeks from today and proof of deposit, placed on record within the same time. In case the costs are not deposited and proof of payment not placed on record, then the Registry shall place the matter before the court.
11. The petition is dismissed, alongwith the pending applications. MARCH13 2014 rkb W.P.(C) 1643/2014 (HIMA KOHLI)