Dr. Vijay Kumar Kathuria & ANR Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors  INSC 56 (29 April 1983)
ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)
CITATION: 1983 SCR (2)1037 1983 SCC (3) 333
1983 SCALE (1)580
Supreme Court Rules, 1966, order XLI, Rule 2
read with Order XLVII, 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 conduct not only the special
leave petitions should be dismissed and the interim order, cancelled, but costs
should be awarded under Order XLI, Rule 2.
The petitioners, filed two petitions for
special leave to appeal and also obtained interim orders of status quo ante as
on 1.10.82 averring that they were continuing their studies as post-graduate
students of Medical College, Rohtak. Since a dispute was raised whether the
provisional admissions granted to them had continued till October 1, 1982 or
were cancelled long prior to that date, an issue was sent to the District
Judge, Rohtak for inquiry and a finding thereon. The said report contained not
only a finding against the petitioners, but also revealed how the two
petitioners and their counsel have indulged in telling 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: (1) It is clear from the report that on
1.10.1982, the petitioners made a false representation to the Supreme Court
that they were continuing their studies as post graduate students of Medical
College, Rohtak on 1.10.1982 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 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 dismissed. [1038 F-H]
(2) In view of their conduct, the petitioners will pay a sum 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 apology by the counsel on his own behalf and on behalf
of the petitioners and awarded only costs under order XLI Rule 2, instead of
drastic action by the respective professional bodies to which they belonged.]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
Petitions (Civil) Nos. 9009 and 9010 of 1982.
From the Judgment and Order dated 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
K.G. Bhagat, Additional Solicitor General and
R. N. Poddar with him for the respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered 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
1st October, 1982 or were cancelled long prior to that date, an issue was sent
to the District Judge Rohtak for inquiry and a finding thereon.
The District 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 full-fledged 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 1.10.1982
the petitioners made a false representation to this Court that they were
continuing their studies as post-graduate students of Medical College Rohtak on
1.10.82, 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 dismissed.
Counsel for the petitioners attempted to
challenge the finding recorded by the District Judge as also some of his
observations made against the petitioners but after going through the report and
other material and after considering all the contentions urged against 1039 it
we are satisfied that it is a very thorough, balanced and satisfactory report
and we accept the finding recorded therein. In view of this C.M.P. No. 27798 of
1982 taken out by the petitioners for contempt as also the Special Leave
Petition Nos, 9009/82 and 9010/82 deserve to be dismissed.
Before parting with the case, however, we
cannot help observing that the conduct or behaviour of the two petitioners as
well as their counsel (Dr. A.K. Kapoor who happens to be a medico-legal
consultant practising in Courts) is most reprehensible and deserves to be
The District Judge's report in that behalf is
eloquent and most revealing as it points out how the two petitioners and their
counsel, (who also gave evidence in support of the petitioner's case before the
District Judge) have indulged in telling lies and making reckless allegation of
fabrication and manipulation of records against the College Authorities and how
in fact the boot is on their leg. It is a sad commentary on the scruples of
these three young gentlemen who are on the threshold of their carriers. In
fact, at one stage we were inclined to refer the District Judge's report both
to the Medical Council as well as the Bar Council for appropriate action but we
refrained from doing so as the petitioners' counsel both on behalf of his
clients as well as on his own behalf tendered unqualified apology and sought
mercy from the Court. We, however, part with the case with a heavy heart
expressing our strong disapproval of their conduct and behaviour but direct
that the petitioners will pay a sum of Rs. 2,500 each as by way of costs to the
respondents. The two S.L.Ps and C.M.P. are thus dismissed with the aforesaid
direction in regard to payment of costs.
S.R. Petitions dismissed.