UDYAMI EVAM KHADI GRAMODYOG WELFARE SANSTHA ANDANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 933 · Decided: 05-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, J.M. PANCHAL · 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 
UDY AMI EV AM KHADI GRAMODYOG \.VELF ARE SANSTHA 
A 
ANDANR. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
DECEMBER 5, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950--Article 226-Writ petition-Filing 
of-Suppressing material fact-Maintainability of-Writ petition c 
suppressing the fact that previously four writ petitions filed on same 
cause of action-One such petition filed under Public Interest Litigation 
challenging constitutionality of provision of Khadi & Village Industries 
Board Act-Held: Writ remedy being equitable in nature, to be taken 
·1 
recourse to with clean hands-Taking recourse to such remedy over D 
and over again amounts to abuse of process of law-On facts, writ 
petitioner had filed all the writ petitions on same cause of action-
PIL was also pertaining to same issue-Hence not maintainable-
Uttar Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960-s. 35A. 
Appellant-Samiti defaulted in payment of loans. Recovery E 
proceedings were initiated. Several Writ Petitions were filed by the 
appellant, questioning recovery proceedings. It also filed a Public 
Interest Litigation wherein appellant No.2 was made a party, 
questioning the constitutionality of Section 35A ofU.P. Khadi and 
F 
_, 
Village Industries Board Act, 1960. Other Writ Petitions were also 
filed by the appellant. Fresh recovery proceedings were initiated. 
Fresh Writ Petition was filed there against. The petition was 
dismissed by High Court holding that the Writ Petition was not 
maintainable as the same was filed suppressing the material fact viz. 
filing of previous Writ Petitions on the same cause of action. Hence G 
the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
933 
H 
934 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. Although the prayers made in the four writ 
applications are apparently different, having gone through the writ 
applications, it became evident that the core issue in each of the 
matter centers round recovery of the amount advanced to the 
appellants by the Bank. Evidently, orders passed in different stages 
B of the proceedings as also new proceedings based upon fresh 
calculation on interest on the principal sum had been in question from 
time to time. Even a Public Interest Litigation was filed wherein 
appellant No. 2 was a party. May be that validity of Section 35A of 
the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960 was one of 
c the issues raised therein, but the recovery proceeding even was the 
subject matter thereof. [Para 9] [937-C, D, E] 
Arunima Baruah v. Union of India and Ors., [2007) 6 SCC 120, 
relied on. 
D 
1.2. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their counter-affidavit have 
drawn attention of the Court to an order passed by the high Court in 
a Writ Petition wherein it was observed that this was the sixth Writ 
Petition against recovery. The said Writ Petition have also been 
dismissed. In the said counter-affidavit, it has further been disclosed 
E that after being unsuccessful in their attempt to stall the recovery 
proceedings against the Samiti, a fictitious welfare Sanstha, namely, 
Udhyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha was started by 
Appellant No. 2. [Paras 12, 13 and 14] [938-C, D, E; 939-C] 
1.3. The attempt on the part of the appellants herein must be 
F termed as 'abuse of the process oflaw'. A writ remedy is an equitable 
one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair 
of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, 
but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and 
over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. Such a 
G repeated filing of Writ Petitions amounts to criminal contempt. 
[Para 15) [939-C, D, E) 
Advocate General. State of Bihar v. A1/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair 
Industries and A nr., [1980) 3 SCC 311, relied on. 
H 
2. In the Public Interest Litigation, Section 35A of the U.P. 
• 
·'"1 
UDYAMIEVAMKHADIGRAMODYOGWELFARE 
935 
SANSTHA v. STATE[SINHA,J.] 
Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960 was challenged on the A 
premise that even the cooperative societies were required to take 
recourse to the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks 
and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Such a contention has expressly 
been rejected by this Court. [Para 10) [937-E, F) 
Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd and B 
Ors., [2007) 6 SCC 236, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5637 of 
2007. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 19
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.