LexTHE AUROVILLE FOUNDATION versus NATASHA STOREY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 469 : 2025 INSC 348 The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey (Civil Appeal No. 13651 of 2024) 17 March 2025 [Bela M. Trivedi* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the applicability of the doctrine of “clean hands and non-suppression of material facts” to the writ petition filed by the respondent seeking substantially the same relief without disclosing the material fact of the dismissal of earlier petition; the correctness of the impugned order passed by the High Court entertaining the said writ petition; and as regards the right of the Residents’ Assembly to be part of any committee or council constituted by the Governing Board of the appellant Foundation. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court – Applicability of doctrine of “clean hands and non-suppression of material facts – On facts, disgruntled residents of Auroville to obstruct the development work of Auroville as per the Master Plan filed unnecessary petitions in the High Court one after the other – Respondent filed writ petition challenging the office order issued by the appellant Foundation and sought direction against the Foundation to appoint the members nominated by the Residents’Assembly through its working Council to the Auroville Town Development Council – Dismissed by the High Court holding that the activities provided u/s.19, to be undertaken by the Residents’ Assembly are only in the nature of supplementing and not supplanting the main powers and functions vested with the Governing Board – Respondent again filed writ petition seeking substantially the same relief without disclosing the material fact of the dismissal of earlier petition – Preliminary objections by the appellant regarding the maintainability of the petition and * Author 470 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports suppression of material facts by the respondent, however, High Court without dealing with the same, entertained the writ petition – Correctness: Held: Doctrine of “clean hands and non-suppression of material facts” is applicable with full force to every proceedings before any judicial forum – Party invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court u/Art.226 must come with clean hands and disclose all correct and material facts in his Writ Petition – If it is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has been guilty of suppression of material and relevant facts or has not come with clean hands, such conduct must be seriously viewed by the courts as the abuse of process of law and the petition must be dismissed on that ground alone without entering into the merits of the matter – Non-disclosure of the material facts at the instance of the respondent should have been seriously viewed by the High Court, as the abuse of the process of court – Furthermore, neither the Act nor the Rules contemplate or confer any right upon the Residents’ Assembly, or upon an individual resident of Auroville to be part of any committee/council constituted by the Governing Board for the efficient discharge of its duties and functions under the Act – Governing Board is vested with all the powers and is empowered to discharge all the functions as may be exercised or discharged by the Foundation, and that the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the Foundation vests in the Governing Board alone – Functions of the Residents’ Assembly are confined only to advise the Governing Board in respect of the activities relating to the residents of Auroville and to make recommendations as specified in s.19, and not any further – Though, s.19(1)(c) required the Residents’ Assembly to assist the Governing Board to formulate the Master Plan of Auroville, however, the said stage already over, when the Master Plan was prepared by the Governing Board in consultation with the Residents’ Assembly and was then approved by the Central Government – Thus, the impugned Standing Order does not suffer from any legal infirmity – High Court misdirected itself in misinterpreting the provisions of the Act and in setting aside the impugned Notification containing the Standing Order – Impugned order being highly erroneous set aside – Writ Petition filed by the respondent before the High Court was to abuse the process of law, to hamper the development of Auroville and to cause obstructions in the smooth func
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.