HC fines petitioner ₹50K for ‘abuse of court process’

Cuttack: Orissa high court has imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on a petitioner for abusing the process of the court and attempting to ‘pollute the stream of justice’.
While dismissing two petitions, HC directed the petitioner, represented by Paresh Nath Das, on Monday to deposit Rs 50,000 as fine in the High Court Bar Association’s welfare fund within three months.
The petitioner had filed a plea seeking quashing of the order of Pattamundai Municipality terminating a contract for providing sanitation service in different wards without giving him an opportunity of hearing.
The bench expressed displeasure after finding the petitioner had intentionally suppressed the fact that he had filed an earlier petition for which he had obtained an interim order.
The two judge bench of Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Savitri Ratho said, “What has truly disturbed us is that unfortunately both the writ applications were filed by the same counsel. While filing the second writ application, counsel for the petitioner was aware of the averments made in the first writ application. The minimum, what was expected from counsel for the petitioner was that he ought to have ensured that the facts regarding the filing of the first writ application were disclosed in the second writ application. We express our displeasure.”
“In view of the above, considering the conduct of the party in suppressing material facts from this court in the pleadings, we are of the considered opinion that both the writ applications deserve to be dismissed without entering into the merits of the respective cases, as the petitioner has abused the process of the court and attempted to pollute the stream of justice by suppressing material facts which amounts to falsehood,” the bench said.
The bench further said the Supreme Court had repeatedly reminded that “a litigant approaching the court of equity must come with clean hands and in case any suppression is noticed, the court should reject such application ‘in limine’ (in the beginning) without considering the merits of the case”.