Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Notice on behalf of respondent no.1 has been accepted by Sri S.B.Pandey, Assistant Solicitor General whereas Sri Prakash Singh, Chief Standing Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties nos. 2 and 4.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Al-Rahman charitable Trust, who is a petitioner herein, is said to be a trust registered with the Registration Officer, Raebareli, has filed the instant writ petition through its Trustee Mr Shareef, chiefly with the prayer to command the opposite parties to allow the petitioner/Muslims to offer Namaz in the disputed area plot no.159, 160 and other surrounding plots knows as Ram Janam Bhoomi Barai Masjid disputed area situated at village Kot Ram Chandra, Ayodhya, Tehsil Faizabad Sadar, District Faizabad .
According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court by its verdict dated September 30, 2010 had allotted one-third of the disputed area to the Muslim community. As the Hindus were permitted to perform religious activities in the area, Muslim should also be permitted to offer Namaz there in view of Article 25 of the Constitution, which guaranteed freedom of religion, and Article 14 which ensured right to equality. Therefore, petitioners have sought for a direction to the State Government to allow members of the Muslim community to offer Namaz at the disputed land known as Ram Janmbhoomi-Babi Masjid situated at the place, referred to above.
Sri S.P. Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition and vehemently argued that the writ petition has been filed with oblique motives as the matter of the disputed site is still pending before the Supreme Court and there were orders of the Apex Court for maintaining status quo on the land of the said area, which is still operating.
It has also been contended that Al-Rahman Trust, which has filed the instant writ petition has been registered only a year ago and this petition has been filed just to gain cheap publicity and come in limelight.
Similar sort of arguments have been advanced by Sri S.B.Pandey, Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India. He also urged that there was no occasion for the petitioner to file such a writ petition when it is known to all that the instant sensitive matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has seized of the matter.
It has also been pointed out that the petitioner trust is registered in district Rae Bareli which is approximately 100 kilometres from Faizabad and it is highly unlikely that members of the trust would offer prayers at the disputed site.
We have heard the counsel for the parties and perusal record.
The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case was decided on September 30, 2010, a three-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
Against this judgment, many parties which appealed in Supreme Court, included the Suni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara, All India Hindu Maha Sabha and Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman. On 9th May 2011, the Supreme Court stayed the verdict on Ayodhya of Allahabad High Court. A copy of the said judgement is been annexed by the petitioner as annexure number 2 which reads as under:-
"The appeals are admitted for hearing.
During the pendency of the appeals, the operation of the judgment and decree passed by the Allahabad High Court shall remain stayed. Further, we are pleased to note that there is complete unanimity on maintaining status quo and all the parties are in agreement that order may be passed for maintaining status quo on the disputed site and on the adjoining land.
We, therefore, pass the following orders :- During the pendency of the appeals, the parties shall maintain status quo in regard to suit land, as directed by an earlier judgment and order passed by this Court in 'Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.' (1994) 6 SCC 360 vide. paragraphs 86, 87, which are reproduced below :-
86. The best solution in the circumstances, on revival of suits is, therefore, to maintain status quo as on 7-1-1993 when the law came into force modifying the interim orders in the suits to that extent by curtailing the practice of worship by Hindus in the disputed area to the extent it stands reduced under the Act instead of 6 conferring on them the larger right available under the court orders till intervention was made by legislation.
87. Section 7(2) achieves this purpose by freezing the interim arrangement for worship by Hindu devotees reduced to this extent and curtails the larger right they enjoyed under the court orders, ensuring that it cannot be enlarged till final adjudication of the dispute and consequent transfer of the disputed area to the party found entitled to the same. This being the purpose and true effect of Section 7(2), it promotes and strengthens the commitment of the nation to secularism instead of negating it. To hold this provision as anti-secular and slanted in favour of the Hindu community 420 would be to frustrate an attempt to thwart anti-secularism and unwittingly support the forces which were responsible for the events of 6-12-1992.
Further, as regards the land adjacent to the suit land which was the subject matter of acquisition by the Central Government, the parties shall maintain status quo, as directed by the order of this Court in 'Mohd. Aslam Alias Bhure vs. Union of India and Others', (2003) 4 SCC 1 vide. paragraphs 4 and 5 read with paragraph 17 of the report, which read as follows :-
4. In this proceeding, which is initiated as public interest petition, several reliefs were claimed but after the interested parties were impleaded and their pleading were put forth what has crystallized is as to the manner in which the adjacent land should be (SIC) final decision in the title suit pending in the High Court of Allahabad. This Court, on 13.3.2002, while issuing the rule, made the following order: "In the meantime, we direct that on the 67.703 acres of land located in revenue 7 plot Nos. 159 and 160 in village Kot Ramchandra which is vested in the Central Government, no religious activity of any kind by anyone either symbolic or actual including bhumi puja or shila puja, shall be permitted or allowed to take place. Furthermore, no part of the aforesaid land shall be handed over by the Government to anyone and the same shall be retained by the Government till the disposal of this writ petition nor shall any part of this land be permitted to be occupied or used for any religious purpose or in connection therewith.
This is subject to further orders which may be passed in this case."
This dispute, undoubtedly one of the most sensitive case pending in the courts today and persons of faiths all over the country are aware about the pendency of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and about the status quo order still holding the field and stay of High Court verdict given in September, 2010 but knowing this fact very well, the petitioner and the Advocates proceeded to file the instant writ petition just to gain popularity and to get their names, a bold space in the Headlines.
The law is well settled that whenever a person approaches the Court, it becomes his bounden duty to do the home work in a positive direction and bring on record each and every detail indicating infringement of right to any citizen and the relating law. It is unfortunate that neither the petitioner nor the two advocates appearing for the petitioner have done any home work before preparing this writ petition and have only levelled bald allegations.
We are shocked to hear that neither the petitioner nor its Advocates have understood the meaning of the stay order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the verdict given by the Full Bench. From the circumstances, it can easily be observed that the writ petition is ill-drafted and in a callous and reckless manner with the sole purpose of getting cheap popularity amongst the masses. If such a practice is allowed to flourish, it will amount of gaining cheap popularity or to hit the headlines of the News Paper by misusing the process of law.
We would also like to observe that we don't find any resolution on record signed by all office bearers of the Trust authorizing its Trustee Mohd. Gaffar to file the instant writ petition.
From the aforesaid facts, it is apparently clear that the petitioner has not come to court with clean mind and has suppressed the material facts. It is settled law that one should approach the court with clean heart and clean mind to get a relief and one who does not come with clean heart and clean mind disentitles himself from getting any relief from the Court.
In Ram Saran Vs. IG of Police, CRPF and others, (2006) 2 SCC 541, the Apex Court observed "A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor would the court be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. ..............."
In Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and others, 2003 (Suppl.) 3 SCR 352, it was reiterated after referring to various earlier decisions of the Apex Court that fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material fact vitiates all solemn acts. In Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi Vs. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody, AIR 1964 SC 345, it was held that if there appears on the part of a person, who has approached the Court, any attempt to overreach or mislead the Court by false or untrue statements or by withholding true information which would have a bearing on the question of exercise of the discretion, the Court would be justified in refusing to exercise the discretion.
Here, it is important to mention that a litigant who has approached this Court in extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction with unclean hands, his conduct makes him liable to pay an exemplary cost for abusing the process of the Court besides wasting precious time of the Court which could have been utilized for some other more deserving cases. It is the pious duty of an Advocate to give proper and correct advice to his client and not to take a long jump to catch the brief at any cost. Thus the petitioner as well as the Advocates who have filed the instant misconceived and frivolous writ petition must be saddled with the liability of heavy cost so that in future such thing may not recur and to avoid misuse of the process of the court.
At this juncture, it would be relevant to the decision rendered in Gurpal Singh versus State of Punjab and others (2005)5 SCC 136 , wherein My Lord Justice Arijit Pasayat speaking for the Bench said :-
" Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. [See State of Maharasthra v. Prabhu and A.P. State Financial Corpn. V. GAR Re-Rolling Mills]. No Litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. [See Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr.) v. K. Parasaran.] Today people rush to courts to file cases in profusion under the attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in courts and among the public."
The Apex Court recently in the case of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik And Ors V Mrs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar And Ors (Decided on 1 March 2017) observed that a blatant abuse of the process of the court must be curb with exemplary costs.
"The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth".
Before parting, we would like to mention that religious tolerance has been one of the great traditions of the people of India. The people of different religions and sects have been living together since ages and contributing in the development of the country. This is a message for all the communities to show full faith and credit to the Constitution and judiciary for maintaining the rule of law and communal harmony. A tolerant society must be nurtured for our growth as a country. In Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala; AIR 1987 SC 748 the Supreme Court observed that "our tradition teaches tolerance, our philosophy preaches tolerance, our Constitution practice tolerance, let us not dilute it." In Aruna Roy vs. Union of India; 2002 SC 3176 the Apex Court said "Democracy cannot survive and the Constitution cannot function unless citizens are not only learned and intelligent, but they also of a good moral character and imbibe the inherent virtues of human being such as truth, love and compassion."
One must not forget that it is the reverent duty of every citizen of the country to preserve the old culture of India, harmony and equilibrium has to be maintained. Every citizen of the country should believe in common brotherhood and try to maintain communal harmony. All the religions are promoting peace and love and feeling of brotherhood with fellow beings.
In view of the aforesaid detailed facts and reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) which shall be deposited by the petitioner within two months from today before the Registry of this Court, failing which, the Senior Registrar of this Court shall request the District Magistrate/Collector concerned to recover the said cost as arrears of land revenue . On receipt of the said cost, the Senior Registrar shall transmit the entire amount to the account of U.P. Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh, Lucknow [State Bank of India, Jawahar Bhawan] which has been notified as Juvenile Justice Fund w.e.f. 4th January, 2017 under the Department of Women and Child Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh. It is further provided that the amount of the said cost shall be utilized for the Welfare of the poor children.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 MH/-