DR. VIJAY KUMAR KATHURIA & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 1037 · Decided: 29-04-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

'·I 
\. 
1037 
DR. VIJAY KUMAR RATHURIA &; ANR. 
v. 
STATE .OF HARYANA & ORS. 
April 29, 1983 
'[V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND v. BALAKRISHNA ERADJ JJ.] 
Snpreme Court Rules, 1966, Order XL!, Rul,e 2 read wi!h Orqer 
)([,,VJ), 
Rule 6 and Order XVI, Rule 4 Special Leave to appeal and interim orders of 
status quo ante, as on the date of filing obtained by false representation to the 
Court-By reason of such condurt not only the special leave petHitins lhould be 
dismissed and the interim order, cancelled, but costs should be awarded under 
()rder XLI, Rule 2., 
The Petitioners, filed two petitions for special leave to appe\ll. arid also 
obtained interim orders of status quo ante as on 1.10.82 averring that t~y were 
continuing their studies as post-graduate students of Medical <;ollege, Rohtak. 
Since a dispute was raised whether the provisional ,admissions &ranted to them 
had continued till October 1, 1982 or were cancelled long prior to that date, an 
issµe was sent to the District Judge, l\.ohtak for inquiry and- a finding thereon. 
The said report contained not only a finding against _tlhe petitioners, but also 
revealed .how the two petitioners and their counsel have indulged in tolling lies 
and·making reckless allegation of fabrication and· manipulation of records 
against the college authorities and how in fact the boot was on their leg. 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
HELD: (I) It is clear from the report that on 1.10.198.Z, the piet.il)A11Cis 
m•d• a false rej>resentation to the Supreme Court that they were continuip,g 
their studies as post graduate students of Medical College, Robtak on'l.10.1982 
. and obtained an order of status quo ante as of that date to be maintained from 
this Court. But for the misrepresentation this Court would never have pes""1 
the said order. By reason of such conduct, ·they have cligntitled !M-lm 
from getting any relief or assistance from this Court and ~~ special 1-"'vie 
petitions are liable to be dismissed. [1038 F-H] 
(2) In view of their conduct, tne petitioners will PllY a Slll!l of 
Rs. 2,500.00 each by way of costs to the respondents. [1039 E] 
[The Court took a lenient view, on the tender of aPololJY by the counsel 
on his own behalf and on behalf of the petitiQners and awarded only costs 
under order XLI Rule 2, instead of drastic action by the respective p1ofesi!lon~l 
\><>dies to which ther belon~ed. j 
· 
· 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
.G 
H 
A 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
1033 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS · 
(1983} 2 s.c.R. 
C1viL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petitions (Civil) 
Nos. 9009 and 9010 of 1982. 
-f 
From the Jµdgment and Order qated.the 21st day of September, 
1982 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in 
C.W.P. No. 2484/82 and 2479/82. 
Dr. Adarsh Kapoor and Mrs. V. D. Khanna for the petitioner. 
K. G. Bhagat, Additional Solicitor General and R. N. Poddar 
,. . 
with him for the respondents. 
~ 
The Order of the Court was drlivered by 
TULZAPURKAR, J. In the above matters since a dispute was 
raised as to whether the . provisional admissions granted to the two 
petitioners had continued till I st October, 1982 or were cancelled 
long prior to that date, an issue was sent to the District Judge 
Rohtak for inquiry aad a finding thereon. The Distiict Judge Rohtak 
was required to submit his report within a specified time. Later for 
some reasons, which it is unnecessary to mention, the enquiry was 
transferred to the District Judge, Hissar who has now submitted his 
report to this Court through his letter dated 4th February, 1983. 
After holding a fulfledged enquiry during the course· of which oral 
as well as documentary evidence was produced by the parties in 
support of their respective versions, the District Judge has recorded 
a finding against the petitioners to the effect that to their knowledge 
their provisional admissions had been cancelled by the concerned 
Authorities much before the crucial date namely, 1.10.1982. In 
other words, it is clear that on LI0.1982 the petitioners made a false 
representation to this Court that they were continuing their studies 
as post-graduate studentsof Medical College Rohtak on J. IO:sz, and 
obtained an order of status quo as of that date to be maintained 
from this Court. But for the misrepresentation this Court would 
never have passed the said order. By reason of such conduct they 
have disentitled themselves from getting any relief or assistance 
from this Court and the Special Leave Petitions are liable to be

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.