(Smt) Vs. Union of India & Ors  INSC 274 (10 May 1993)
this petition the tenant challenges validity of Section 3(c) of Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958. It is claimed that similar petitions are pending in this Court.
there would have been no difficulty in entertaining this petition but we find
that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by way of petition under
Article 136 and his petition was directed to be tagged with other petitions and
interim order, too, was granted. Later on at the instance of the landlord the
leave was revoked and the petition was dismissed.
overcome this hurdle the learned counsel has placed reliance on Hari Singh v.
State of Haryana' and A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak2.
He urged that a citizen of India has a
constitutional right to be treated alike. According to him this Court committed
a mistake in revoking leave and depriving the petitioner to avail of his
constitutional remedy. Therefore, this Court is constitutionally obliged to
grant her protection.
of constitutional right cannot be disputed.
one of the well-established principles of invoking extraordinary jurisdiction
is to approach the Court with clean hands and honest conscience. One cannot
abuse the process of Court and yet claim its protection. Since the Bench
revoking the leave, found that the petitioner had obtained interim order by
suppression of facts, it would not be proper on our part to grant any
indulgence to such a litigant. We, therefore, refuse to entertain this petition
and dismiss it in limine.