Holding

A false representation to the Supreme Court to obtain interim relief disqualifies the petitioners from any relief and justifies dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions.

Summary

The petitioners, Dr. Vijay Kumar Rathuria and another, filed two Special Leave Petitions seeking an interim order that the status quo of their postgraduate studies at Medical College, Rohtak be maintained as of 1 October 1982. A dispute arose over whether their provisional admissions had been cancelled before that date, and the matter was referred to the District Judge, Rohtak, later transferred to the District Judge, Hisar. The District Judge’s inquiry concluded that the admissions had indeed been cancelled prior to 1 October 1982, and that the petitioners had falsely represented to the Supreme Court that they were still studying there to obtain the interim order. The Supreme Court held that such false representation disqualifies the petitioners from any relief, dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, and ordered each petitioner to pay Rs 2,500 costs to the respondents. The Court also noted the reprehensible conduct of the petitioners and their counsel but refrained from referring the matter to professional bodies after an apology was tendered.

Issues considered

Whether a false representation to the Supreme Court to obtain an interim order warrants dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions.
Whether costs may be awarded against petitioners under Order XLI, Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
Whether any further contempt or disciplinary action is appropriate against the petitioners or their counsel.

Legislation cited

Supreme Court Rules, 1966s. Order XLI, Rule 2, s. Order XL, Rule 2, s. Order XVI, Rule 4

Subjects

false representationspecial leave petitioninterim orderstatus quo antecostsSupreme Court Rulescontemptmedical college admissionmisrepresentation

Judgment

1037
DR. VIJAY KUMAR RATHURIA &; ANR.
v.
STATE .OF HARYANA & ORS.

April 29, 1983

'[V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND v. BALAKRISHNA ERADJ JJ.]
B

Snpreme Court Rules, 1966, Order XL!, Rul,e 2 read wi!h Orqer )([,,VJ),
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 condurt not only the special leave petHitins lhould be
dismissed and the interim order, cancelled, but costs should be awarded under
c
()rder XLI, Rule 2.,

The Petitioners, filed two petitions for special leave to appe\ll. arid also
obtained interim orders of status quo ante as on 1.10.82 averring that t~y were
continuing their studies as post-graduate students of Medical <;ollege, Rohtak. D
Since a dispute was raised whether the provisional ,admissions &ranted to them
'·I had continued till October 1, 1982 or were cancelled long prior to that date, an
\. issµe was sent to the District Judge, l\.ohtak for inquiry and- a finding thereon.
The said report contained not only a finding against _tlhe petitioners, but also
revealed .how the two petitioners and their counsel have indulged in tolling 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. E

Dismissing the petitions, the Court

HELD: (I) It is clear from the report that on 1.10.198.Z, the piet.il)A11Cis
m•d• a false rej>resentation to the Supreme Court that they were continuip,g
their studies as post graduate students of Medical College, Robtak on'l.10.1982
F
. 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 pes""1
the said order. By reason of such conduct, ·they have cligntitled !M-lm
from getting any relief or assistance from this Court and ~~ special 1-"'vie
petitions are liable to be dismissed. [1038 F-H]
.G
(2) In view of their conduct, tne petitioners will PllY a Slll!l 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 aPololJY by the counsel
on his own behalf and on behalf of the petitiQners and awarded only costs H
under order XLI Rule 2, instead of drastic action by the respective p1ofesi!lon~l
\><>dies to which ther belon~ed. j · ·
1033 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · (1983} 2 s.c.R.

C1viL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petitions (Civil) ,..
A Nos. 9009 and 9010 of 1982. -f
From the Jµdgment and Order qated.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 the petitioner.

K. G. Bhagat, Additional Solicitor General and R. N. Poddar
with him for the respondents. ~

c The Order of the Court was drlivered 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 I st October, 1982 or were cancelled
'(
long prior to that date, an issue was sent to the District Judge
D Rohtak for inquiry aad a finding thereon. The Distiict 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 fulfledged 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
F other words, it is clear that on LI0.1982 the petitioners made a false
representation to this Court that they were continuing their studies
as post-graduate studentsof Medical College Rohtak on J. IO:sz, 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
G
have disentitled themselves from getting any relief or assistance
from this Court and the Special Leave Petitions are liable to be
dismissed.

H Counsel for the petitioners attempted to challenge the finding
recorded by the District Judge as also some of his observations
made against the petitfoners but after going .through the report and
other material and after considering all the contentions urged against
V.K. KATHURIA v. HARYANA (Tu/zapurkar, J.) 1039

it we are satisfied that it is a very thorough, balanced and satisfactory
· 1" report and we accept the finding recorded therein. In view of this A
C.M.P. No. 27798 of 1982 iaken 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
B
counsel (Dr. A.K. Kapoor who happens to be a medico-legal consult-
ant practising in Courts) is most reprehensible and deserves to be
deprecated. 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 c
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 D
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, how-
ever, part with the case with a heavy heart expressing our strong
disapproval of their conduct and behaviour but direct that the peti-
tionei:s 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.