G.M. HARYANA ROADWAYS versus JAI BHAGWAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 1156 · Decided: 05-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2008] 3 S.C.R. 1156 
G.M. HARYANA ROADWAYS 
II. 
JAi BHAGWAN AND ANR. 
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23385 of 2004) 
MARCH 5, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 - art. 136: 
SLP -- Petitioner-State taking one stand before Court but 
C acting otherwise on the administrative side - Suppressing 
material facts before Court by non-disclosure - Held: 
Suppression of material fact and that too at the instance of the 
State must be viewed seriously-Also on facts, State was guilty 
of serious delay and /aches - Hence, SLP liable to be 
D dismissed -- Exemplary cost of Rs. 1 lakh also imposed -
Del?Y I /aches. 
Respondent No.1, a casual worker in the State 
Roadways, was terminated from service. The Labour 
E Court directed his reinstatement. Accordingly the State 
Roadways re-instated Respondent No.1 but subsequently 
filed writ petition before the High Court questioning the 
award passed by the Labour CoLtrt. The factum of re-
instatement was not disclosed in the writ petition which 
was summarily dismissed. Subsequently services of 
F Respondent No.1 was regularized in terms of a scheme. 
Thereafter the State Roadways filed the present 
Special Leave Petition without disclosing the facts of 
reinstatement and regularization. Respondent No.1 in his 
G counter affidavit brought the aforementioned facts to the 
notice of this Court. 
Dismissing the SLP, the Court 
HELD: 1. The explanation offered by the petitioner 
H' 
.. 
1156 
G.M. HARYANA ROADWAYS v. JAi BHAGWAN AND 
1157 
ANR. 
.. 
that non-disclosure of the said facts was not intentional A 
+-
cannot be accepted. The writ petition was filed before the 
High Court after a period of about one year and five 
months. Even prior thereto, the respondent was 
reinstated in service. [Para 10J [1162-A, BJ 
2. The Special Leave Petition was barred by 153 days, 
B 
'F 
but despite the same the orders dated 10.5.2002 
... 
reinstating the first respondent and that of 21.6.2004 
regularising his services were not brought to the notice 
of the court. The delay occurred in filing the SLP was, in 
fact, about 721 days. However, it appears that 478 days c 
time was taken for obtaining the certified copy of the order 
of the High Court which also appears to be a bit unusual. 
[Para 11 J [1162-B, C, DJ 
\ 
3.1. It is not understandable as to how even in a case D 
1 
of this nature where the State pretended to be so serious 
1 
in obtaining a principle of law determined by this Court, 
such a delay took place both in filing the writ petition as 
also the Special Leave Petition. Suppression of material 
fact is viewed seriously by the Superior Courts exercising 
E 
their discretionary jurisdiction. [Para 12J [1162-D, EJ 
3.2. The suppression must be of material fact so as 
to enable it to refuse to exercise its discretionary 
+· 
jurisdiction. What would be a material fact, suppression 
whereof would disentitle the Appellant to obtain a F 
discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and 
circumstances of each case. [Para 12) [1163-B] 
S. J. S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of B1har and 
Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 166; Arunima Baruah v. Union of India 
(UOI) and Ors. (2007) 6 sec. 120 and Prestige Lights Ltd. v. 
G 
State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449 - relied on. 
t--
4. If the aforementioned facts had been brought to 
the notice of this Court, the Special Leave Petition might 
·have been dismissed summarily. Even ~lay in filing. the H 
.. 
1158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A same might not have been condoned. The Court was not 
_. 
required to waste so much of time when the State itself ;-
had, for all intent and purport, accepted the award. 
Furthermore, the State was guilty of serious delay and 
latches. Therefore, for suppression of fact of such a nature 
B and that too at the instance of the State must be viewed 
seriously. It is expected that in future the State would take 
~ 
necessary measures in pursuing its matter before the 
Superior Court keeping in view the conduct expected of 
a State. [Paras 12, 13] [1163-E, F, G] 
C 
5. Not only this special leave petition should be 
dismissed but exemplary costs should also be awarded 
in the matter. The cost is quantified at Rs.1,00,000/-. 
[Para 14] [1164-A] 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave 
Petition (Civil) No. 23385 of 2004. 
E 
F 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.9.2002 of the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 
15317/2002.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.