Holding

The Supreme Court held that although the petitioners' conduct amounted to abuse of process and mis‑statements, the writ petitions should not be dismissed and must be heard on their merits.

Summary

The All India State Bank Officers Federation filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging a new promotion policy of the State Bank of India, claiming urgency and alleging violations of fundamental rights. The Bank countered that the Federation had previously filed similar writ petitions in the Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka High Courts, which the Federation denied, thereby suppressing material facts and making false statements in its affidavits. The Supreme Court held that such mis‑statements and the simultaneous filing of petitions in multiple courts amounted to an abuse of the judicial process, but it did not deem these grounds sufficient to dismiss the petitions outright. The Court overruled the Bank’s preliminary objections, expressed strong disapproval of the petitioners’ conduct, and ordered that the writ petitions be proceeded with on their merits, adjourned for further hearing. The judgment thus underscores that while abuse of process is condemnable, it does not automatically merit dismissal of a writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether suppression of material facts and false statements in affidavits justify dismissal of a writ petition under Article 32.
Whether the simultaneous filing of identical writ petitions in different High Courts constitutes abuse of the judicial process.
Whether the lack of impleading of directly affected officers affects the maintainability of the writ petition.
Whether preliminary objections based on mis‑statements can lead to dismissal of the petition.

Subjects

misstatementsuppression of material factsabuse of processsimultaneous filingwrit petitionArticle 32preliminary objectionmaintainabilitypromotion policypublic sector bank

Judgment

ALL INDIA STATE BANK OFFICERS FEDERATION A
THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT AND ORS. ETC.
v.
+= UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

APRIL 16, 1990
B
[S. RANGANATHAN, J.S. VERMA AND
M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.]

Constitution of India 1950: Article 32-Writ Petition-Reckless
statements and deliberate mis-statements-Making of-Court records
strong disapproval. c
Practice a_nd Procedure: Writ Petitions-Simultaneous filing of in
various High Courts-A practice which has to be discouraged.

The All India State Bank Officers' Federation filed a Writ Peti-
tion in this Court on the 24th April, 1989 seeking to impugn a new D
promotion policy initiated by the State Bank of India. The petition was
supported by an affidavit of the President of the Federation a!Tmning
the contents of the petition to be true to his personal knowledge, and
submitting in paragraph 9(mm) of the petition that the petitioners were
approaching this Court in great haste as the Bank was moving with
great speed to Implement its new promotion policy and was likely to E
constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee, and declare the
results. In para 4 it was submitted that the petitioners bad not filed any
other similar petition either in this Court or any other High Court.

When the writ petition came up for admission before a Bench of
this Court on April 26, 1989, counsel for the State Bank of India was F
present and accepted notice on behalf of the Bank.

The Writ Petition was contested by the Bank which submitted in
its counter affidavit that the statement in para 4 of the petition in
support of the writ petition was false, and pointed out that the Federa-
tion through its Deputy General Secretary bad filed a Writ Petition in G
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh along with an application seeking
stay of the promotion policy, and that the High Court admitted the Writ
Petition on April 13, 1989 but rejected the application for interim stay,
and further pointed out that another petition had been filed by the State
Bank of India Officers' Association (Karnataka) in the Karnataka
High Court. A second .objection as regards the maintainability of the H

493
(
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS l 1990] 2 S.C.R.

A petition "was raised in para 3 that since the promotions had already been
made they could not be disturbed and that no steps were taken to - --)- .
implead those officers, who would be directly affected as a result of the
prayer made in the writ petition.

To the aforesaid objections raised by the Bank the petitioner filed
B
a rejoinder supported by an affidavit of the President of the Federation,
submitting that the deponent did not have any knowledge of the writ
petition filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and that as soon as
it came to his knowledge it was withdrawn. and that the petitioners did
not know the names of all the 58 candidates who had been promoted
favoured.
c
When the Writ Petition was taken up for further hearing on April
S, 1990, counsel for the Bank objected to the maintainability of the writ
petition on the grounds of suppression of material facts and abuse of the
process of court. The Court directed the petitioner to file a better
affidavit, and the petitioner Federation filed a better affidavit •"<plain-
D ing the correct position and tendering an unqualified apology for the
mis-statements in the earlier affidavit, but still reiterated that they
came to know of the writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court
only on April 23, 1989 and that, at the time of the preliminary hearing,
it was brought to the notice of the Court by the Respondent's counsel.
E The respondent pointed out that the statements made in the
rejoinder filed by the petitioners that they were not aware of the names
of the promoted officers till November, 1989 was a total falsehood
because; (i) the writ petition filed in the Karnataka High Court made
all of them parties to the writ petition, and (ii) the names of the pro-
moted officers were listed in the fortnightly bulletin of the State Bank
F Officers' Association dated Jst May, 1989 carrying a message of con-
gratulations to all of them.

Disposing of the preliminary objections and adjourning the writ
petition for further hearing on merits, the Court,
G HELD: I. Apart from mis-statements in the affidavits filed before
this Court the petitioner federation has clearly resorted to tactics which
can only be described as abuse of the process of court. The simnltaneous
filing of writ petitions in various High Courts on the same issue though
purportedly on behalf of different associations of the Officers of the
Bank, is a practice which has to be discouraged. [SOOH; SOJA]
H
I STATE BANK OFFICERS FEDR. v. U.0.1. 495

2. An attempt was made to obtain a stay in the Andhra Pradesh A
High Court and when that attempt failed the writ petition here was
filed. In this the petitioners were able to obtain only an order that any
promotions made during the pendency of the petition would be subject
to the decision in the writ petition. But having obtained this order on
April 26, 1989, it is curious and inexplicable that an affiliated associa- B
tion should have made an application on April 27, 1989 in the
Karnataka High Court praying for a stay of the promotions. These are
7 only tactics that will be indulged in by a chronic and compulsive litigant
' and not by a Federation like the petitioner. [SO 1C-D]

3. One expects that officers fight their battles fairly and squarely
and not stoop low to gain what can only be temporary victories by c
keeping away material facts from the court. [S01EJ

---L ~ 4. It is common knowledge that, of late, statements are being
made in petitions and affidavits recklessly without proper verifications,.
not to speak of dishonest and deliberate misstatements. Strong and
D
emphatic disapproval of the conduct of the petitioners in this case is
recorded in the hope that this will be a lesson to the present petitioners
as well as to other litigants and that atleast in future people will act
more truthfully and with a greater sense of responsibility. [SO lF -G]
\
\.-- S. The Court does not wish to penalise the various officers who
E
may suffer as a consequences of the new policy, which they wish to
challenge, and decline them an oppor.tunity to put forward their grie-
vances before the Court, for the mis-statements or wrong steps taken by
the officers of the Federation in their over-anxiety to get quick interim

•
..
relief. [S02B-C]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 507
F
and 1260 of 1989.
--1
(Under Article 32ofthe Constitution oflndia).

M.K. Ramamurthy, Rajinder Sachhar, Dr. Francis Julion, Ms.
G
Aruna Mathur, A. Mariarputham, Ms. S. Dikshit, S. Vasudevan and
Pradeep Misra for the Petitioners.

~ For the Respondents-Nemo.

The following Order of the Court was delivered by
\-1
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1990] 2 S.C.R. I
A
S. RANGANATHAN, J. This order will dispose of a preliminary -...:::+
objection raised on behalf of the respondents that these writ petitions
should be dismissed because the petitioners have suppressed certain
material facts from this Court and have also tried to abuse the process
of court in the manner hereinafter appearing.
B
Writ Petition No. 507 of 1989 has been filed by the All India
State Bank Officers' Federation (hereinafter called 'the Federation')
through its President. It was filed in this Court on 21st April, 89 and "
was supported by an affidavit of Urned Singh, President of the Federa-
tion, affirming the contents of the petition to be true to his personal
""" ~

c knowledge. By this writ petition the Federation seeks to impugn a new
promotion policy decided upon by the State Bank of India (hereinafter
called 'the Bank'). In paragraph 9(mm) of the petition it is stated that ->--
the petitioners are approaching this Court in great haste as the Bank is
moving with_ great speed and is likely to constitute Departmental
Promotion Committees and declare the results of the interviews in
D implementation of the new promotion policy within the next two or
three days. In the affidavit of Urned Singh, referred to earlier, it has
been stated in para 4 that the petitioners have not filed any other
similar writ petition in this Honourable Court or any other High
Court. _J
E
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Bank, it is stated that
the statement in paragraph 4 of the petition in support of the writ
petition is false. It is pointed out that the Federation through its
Deputy General Secretary had filed Writ Petition No. 5286 of 19.89 in ~
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad along with an appli-
F cation No. 6969 of 1989, seeking stay of the promotion policy. On
13.4.89 the Andhra Pradesh High Court admitted the writ petition but \-
the learned judge rejected the application for interim stay observing
"that he was prima facie satisfied that the selection is going on accord-
ing to a fair procedure and that there is no need to stay any of the
interviews or the appointment". It is further pointed out that another
G petition has also been filed by the State Bank of India Officers' Asso-
ciation (Kamataka) having its office at Bangalore in the Kamataka
High Court, being Writ Petition No. 7848 of 1989. It is, therefore,
submitted that the petitioners have suppressed from this Court the 1'
material fact that a writ petition has already been filed by them in the
Andhra Pradesh High Court and that an application for stay had been
H made and rejected by the said court. A second objection to the
I STATE BANK OFFICERS FEDR. v. U.0.1. [S. RANGANATiiAN, J.1 497

maintainability. of the petition raised on behalf of the Bank in
A
paragraph 3 of its counter affidavit was that since promotions had
already been made they could not be disturbed "as the promoted
officers have not been made parties", It is common ground that 58
officers had been promoted w.e.f. 24th April, 89 but no steps were
taken to implead these officers, who would be directly affected as a
result of the prayer made in the.writ petition. B

To these objections, a rejoinder was filed on behalf of the
petitioners, supported again by an affidavit of Urned Singh on the 23rd
of October, 1989. The two objections raised by the Bank were sought
to be refuted in the following manner:

"1. That the contents of para 1 are denied and it .is c
reiterated that the writ petition is maintainable as there is
·•
clear violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the
petitioners. The writ petition filed in the Andhra Pradesh
High Court has since been withdrawn as per the undertak-
ing given to the Supreme Court during arguments on D
24A.89. The deponent had no knowledge of the writ petition
filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, hence as
soon as it came to his knowledge the same has been with-
drawn. Even otherwise the deponent understands that in
the said writ petition the stay of interviews was prayed and
the same was declined on representation made by the E
respondent bank. It is indeed regrettable that even before
Hon'ble High Court the bank made incorrect statements.
A perusal of the order of High Court would show the same.
Regarding the question of making such employees who
have been promoted as a party respondent, it is submitted
that firstly it is the promotion policy which had been chal- F
lenged being arbitrary, discriminatory and framed in gross
violation of the prescribed procedure and provisions of
law, secondly the petitioners even today do not know the
names of all such 58 candidates who have been promoted
favoured."
(emphasis added) G

It may be mentioned here that Writ Petition No. 507 of 1989
came up for admission before a Bench of this Court on 26th April,
1989. Apparently, the counsel for the State Bank of India was present
and accepted notice on behalf of the bank. The Bench passed the
following order: H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.
/
"Issue notice, Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned counsel accepts
A notice on behalf of the State Bank of India. Counter
affidavit shall be filed within four weeks from today. ·~
Reply, if any, shall be filed within two weeks thereafter,
the matter will be placed for final disposal on 24. J0.1989
subject to overnight part-heard. The promotion if given in
B the meantime will be subject to the decision in the writ
petition. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned counsel states that
the writ petition which has been filed before the High
Court will be withdrawn."

The Writ Petition came on for hearing before us on 5th April,
'
.._...,
1990. Sri G. Ramaswamy, counsel for the Bank, put the above objec- '
c tions in the forefront as preliminary objections. After hearing him and
the counsel for the petitioner, we directed the petitioner federation to
• file a better affidavit explaining the correct position. In compliance -'--- -
with the direction given by us, another affidavit has been filed by Sri ·
Urned Singh. In this affidavit, again, although purporting to "tender
D an unqualified apology" for the misstatement in the earlier affidavit,
the deponent reiterated "that he did not know on the date of swearing
of the affidavit on 21.4.89 that some other office bearer of the
petitioner federation has filed such a petition". He claims to have
come to know of it only on the 23rd April, 1989 from a telephonic
conversation with the Deputy Secretary and wishes to take credit for -1
E the fact that he at once informed his counsel about it who in turn
brought it to the notice of the Court at the time of the preliminary
hearing on 26th April, 1989. The truth of these allegations is refuted
on behalf of the Bank. It is submitted that the counsel for the
petitioner did not, even at the time of hearing on 26.4.89, bring to the
~
notice of this Court the fact that he had filed a petition in the Andhra
F Pradesh High Court. On the other hand, it is claimed, it was the
,
counsel for the Bank who was present and who took notice on behalf
of the Bank, that brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner
'r
had already moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court in regard to the
same relief and it was only thereafter that the counsel for the
petitioner made a statement that the petitioner would withdrew the
G petition filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Even this, it is
pointed out, they did not do immediately as stated in Urned Singh's
affidavit for the said petition was withdrawn only much later on 27th of
July, 1989. 1'
On behalf of the Bank it is also pointed out that the statement
H made in the rejoinder filed by Urned Singh, supported by his affidavit,
STATE BANK OFFICERS FEDR. v. U.0.1. [S. RANGANATHAN, J.] 499

that the addresses of the 58 promotees was not known to the petitioner
p
is again a total falsehood as is demonstrated by two c!fcumstances. In
-f'- the first place, in the writ petition filed in the Karnataka High Court,
the petitioner there has joined all the 58 officers as parties and an
application was moved before the said High Court on 27th April, 89,
seeking stay of promotion of the said respondents. That apart, on 1st
May, 89, a fortnightly bulletin issued by the State Bank of India Offi- B
cers' Association (Mumbai circle), which is admitted to be one of the
associations affiliated to the petitioner Federation, carries a message
y of congratulations to all the 58 officers, who had been promoted w.e.f.
;
..- 24th April, 89. The names of all the 58 officers so promoted has been
set out in this bulletin.

In this state of the record, learned counsel for the Bank strongly c
urges that we should dismiss the writ petition straightaway on the
ground that the petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands.
-J
We have heard learned counsel on both sides at length. There is
no doubt left in our minds that the petitioner has not only suppressed D
material facts in the petition but has also tried to abuse judicial pro-
cess. The explanation that the President of the Federation when he
filed the writ in this Court on 21st April, 89, was not aware that a
petition had been filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court (repeated
for a second time in the affidavit of 5th April' 90) is, in our opinion, is
'
~ totally unacceptable. Admittedly the federation was considerably E
agitated by the new promotion policy. The matter was considered to
be very urgent and the federation was too keen to obtain a stay of

,.
implementation of the policy which, it feared. the Bank might do any
day. In this situation, not even the most gullible of persons would be
credulous enough to accept the explanation that the Deputy General
Secretary of the Federation had not apprised the President of their failure to F
obtain the stay order from the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It is totally
~ unbelievable that between 13.4.89, when the interim application in the
Andhra Pradesh High Court was rejected and 21.4.89 when the writ
petition was filed, the President was not aware of what had happened
in the High Court. It is deplorable that such an explanation should
have been not only put forward in the original rejoinder but should G
have been repeated again in the latest affidavit. The petitioner had, in

,. our opinion, deliberately suppressed from the petition this crucial and
important fact. As to the credit sought for having brought this fact to
the notice of the Court on 25.4.89. the circumstances suggest that
perhaps they would not have brought it to the notice of the court at all
had not counsel on behalf of the Bank been present. to receive notice H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

when the matter was moved for admission on 26.4.89. whether, as
A
asserted by the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner considered it
prudent, in view of the presence of the Bank's counsel, to volunteer at
the time of the said hearing the information that a petition had been
filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and to offer an undertaking
that it would be withdrawn or whether, as alleged in a "statement of
B facts" placed before us by Sri S.S Sharma, the learned counsel for the
Bank who appeared at the hearing, even this information had to be
supplied to the Court by the Bank, is a controversy into which we need
not enter. We shall proceed on the assumption that the statement
made by the counsel for the petitioner is correct, but even that does
not explain why a reference to the writ petition in the High Court was

c
not made in the writ petition as it had to be made. The statement in the
affidavit of Urned Singh that no petition had been filed in any High
Court was clearly and plainly false.
-
It is equally clear that the statement made in the rejoinder
affidavit that "till today (i.e. 23rd October, 1989) the petitioner
D federation is not aware of the names of the promoted officers" is again
an incorrect statement. These officers had been impleaded in the
interim application for the relief sought against them in the Karnataka
High Court as early as 27.4.89. That apart the federation could not
have been unaware of the contents of the bulletin issued by the
Mumbai circle of the SBI Officer's Association issued on 1.5.89. There
E is no doubt that the petitioner did not deliberately implead the 58
promoted officers. Sri Sachhar, for the petitioner, sought to contend
that these 58 officers may be proper parties but not necessary parties
and he referred us to the judgments of this Court in The General
Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and Another v.
A. V.R. Siddhantti and Ors., [1974] 4 S.C.C. 335 and Col. D.D. Joshi &
F Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1983] 2 S.C.C. 235. We are not here
concerned with the question whether these officers were necessary or
proper parties and, indeed, this issue is no longer alive as, sub-
sequently, the petitioner itself has undertaken to implead these 58
officers and notices have been issued to them in both the writ peti-
tions. What we are concerned here with is the statement, in the rejoin-
G der affidavit that the Federation was not aware of the names of the 58
officers till Novermber 1989 which, in the circumstances is a clear
misstatement.

Apart from misstatements in the affidavits filed before this
1
Court, the petitioner Federation has clearly resorted to tactics which
H can only be described as abuse of the process of court. The simultane-
STATE BANK OFFICERS FEDR. v. U.0.1. (S. RANGANATHAN, J.] 501

ous filing of writ petitions in various High Courts on the same issue
A
though purportedly on behalf of different associations of the Officers
of the Bank, is a practice which has to be discouraged. Sri Sachhar and
~ Sri Ramamurthy wished to pinpoint the necessity and importance of
petitions being filed by different associations in order to discharge
satisfactorily their responsibilities towards their respective members.
We are not quite able to appreciate such necessity where there is no B
diversity but only a commonness of interest. All that they had to do
was to join forces and demonstrate their unity by filing a petition iu a

.
'
y' Single Court. It seems the object here in filing different petitions in
different Courts was a totally different and not very laudable one.
Again an attempt was made to obtain a stay in the Andhra Pradesh
High Court and when that attempt failed the writ petition here was
filed. In this the petitioners were able to obtain only an order that any
promotions made during the pendency of the petition would be subject
c

to the decision in the writ petition. But, having obtained this order on
,. 26.4.89, it is curious and inexplicable that an affiliated association
-~

should have made an application on 27.4.89 in the Kamataka High
Court praying for a stay of the promotions. These are only tactics that D
it will be indulged in by a chronic and compulsive litigant and not by a
federation like the petitioner.

We have set out the facts in this case at some length and passed a
detailed order because we are deeply grieved to come across such

• conduct on the part of an association, which claims to represent high
placed officers of a prenner bank of this country. One ·expects such
officers to fight their battles fairly and squarely and not to stoop low to
gain, what can only be, temporary victories by keeping away material
E

facts from the court. It is common knowledge that, of late, statements

•
are being made in petitions and affidavits recklessly and without
proper verification not to speak of dishonest and deliberate mis- F
statements. We, therefore, take this opportunity to record our stnzng
-,} and emphatic disapproval of the conduci of the petitioners in this case
and hope that this wilfbe a lesson to the present petitioner as well as to
other litigants and that atleast in future people will act more truthfully
and with a greater sense of responsibility.
G
The question that now remains to be considered is whether the
petition is liable to be dismissed for this conduct of the President of the
Federaton. Sri Rajendra Sachhar, appearing on behalf of the peti-
r- tioners, sought to get over the Bank's objections by addressingcenain
technical arguments. He submitted that even 1f Writ Petition No. 507 I
89 was liable to be dismissed for mis-statement and suppression there H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

A would be no reason to dismiss C.W.P. No. 1260 of 1989 which has
been filed by another association of the same officers. He also sought
to contend that, since it had been brought to the notice of this Court on
26.4.89 that a petition had been filed in a High Court and that it was
being withdrawn, the order passed by this Court on 26.4.89 should be
taken as having condoned any mis-statement or mis-conduct or defects
B in the writ petition. We are not inclined to accept these submissions.
However, it is not necessary t~ discuss this aspect further as we do not
wish to penalise the various officers who may suffer as a consequence
of the new policy, which they wish to challenge, for the misstatements
or wrong steps taken by the Officers of the federation perhaps, in their
over-anxiety to get quick interim relief. We do not wish to decline
c them an opportunity to put forward thier grievances before the court
by dismissing these writ petitions on the preliminary objections raised
by the Bank. In fact, we should like to place on record our apprecia-
tion of the stand taken by Sri G. Ramaswamy, learned counsel for the
Bank in this respect. He fairly stated that, as he is appearing for a
public sector undertaking, he is quite prepared to contest the writ
D petitions on their merits and that his preliminary objections were
primarily intended to bring to our notice the conduct of the petitioners
in this case. We are glad he did it as this was a matter which needed
serious notice. We should like to record our dis-approval of the way in
which the proceedings have been conducted on behalf of the
Federation.
E
Howe¥er, as mentioned above, we overrule the preliminary
objections and will proceed to dispose of the writ petitions on their
merits. The Writ Petitions are adjourned, as per separate order, to
17. 7. 90 for further hearing.

F N.V.K.