Holding

A writ petition seeking the reliefs claimed is not the appropriate remedy where the dispute involves factual issues and specific statutory remedies, so the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, a jewellery businessman, alleged that two respondents conspired against him, leading to false criminal cases and defamatory media coverage. He filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking investigation, compensation, and other reliefs, which the High Court dismissed on the ground that each prayer had an effective remedy in the appropriate courts and that the petition involved disputed questions of fact. The petitioner then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, also having earlier filed a writ under Article 32 which he failed to disclose. The Supreme Court examined whether a writ under Article 226 could be used to obtain the reliefs sought and whether the High Court's dismissal was correct. It held that the matters raised required adjudication of factual disputes and specific statutory remedies, making a writ petition an inappropriate remedy, and therefore affirmed the High Court's decision. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed with no relief granted to the petitioner.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 is the appropriate remedy when the reliefs sought involve disputed questions of fact and specific statutory remedies.
Whether the Supreme Court can entertain a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 in such circumstances.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to equitable relief despite his failure to disclose a prior Article 32 petition and his conduct.

Legislation cited

Advocates Act, 1961s. 35

Subjects

Writ petitionArticle 226Article 32Article 136Judicial reviewDisputed questions of factSpecific statutory remediesEquitable reliefDefamationSpecial Leave Petition

Judgment

A SANJA Y SITARAM KHEMKA
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

MAY 5, 2006

B [S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.)

Constitution ofIndia, 1950-Article 226-Writ Petition involving disputed ,..
questions of fact-Prayer for grant of various reliefs-Judicial Review--
C Exercise of-Held: Such matter cannot he dealt with by High Court-Writ
Petition not the remedy-Petitioner is required to pursue specific remedies
provided in law-Thus, order of High Court not granting any relief is correct
and interference by this Court not warranted-Also in view of the conduct of
the party, not entitled to any relief in equitr-Article 13 6.

D Petitioner claiming to be a manufacturer of jewellery alleged that
the respondent no. 3 and 4 entered into a criminal conspiracy against him
as he had exposed their illegal acts and corrupt practices in the media.
False cases were registered against the petitioner and also his photographs
were published in media with a story that he was hard core criminal.
Petitioner filed writ petition praying for various reliefs. High Court
E dismissed the same since for each of the prayers the petitioner had effective
remedy in appropriate courts. Hence, the present special leave petition.

Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court

HELD: High Court rightly held that the writ petition involved
F
disputed questions of fact. Such matter cannot be dealt with by High Court
in exercise of its power of judicial review. Petitioner has several causes of
action wherefor he is required to pursue specific remedies provided
therefor in law. A Writ Petition for grant of the said reliefs was not the
remedy. Having regard to the allegations and counter allegations made
G by the parties that several facts with regard to involvement of the
petitioner in connection with several offences came to light and also the
disputed questions of fact, the High Court or this Court cannot go into
the merit of the matter; evidently no relief can be granted to the petitioner
at this stage. Therefore, the impugned judgment of High Court does not

H 942
SANJAY SITARAM KHEMKA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 943

contain any factual or legal error warranting interference by this Court A
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. Further,
in view of the conduct of the petitioner in not pointing out the fact that
he had filed writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, he is not
entitled to any equitable relief in the petition for special leave.
(945-F-H; 946-A-CJ B

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4131
·~ of 2005.

From the Judgmennt and final Order dated 15.6.05 of the Bombay
High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1213 of 2005.
c
Petitioner-In-Person.

Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, K.V. Mohan R.K. Chaudhary, Saide Jakaria
and S. Rajappa for Respondent.

The Judgmennt of the Court was delivered by D
..
S.B. SINHA, J. The Petitioner herein is a businessman. He had been
carrying on business in the name and style of "JEWELS-9". His business
premises is situate at 504-D, Crystal Plaza, New Link Road, Andheri West,
Mumbai-400 053. He claims himself to be a manufacturer of jewellery. He
claims himself to be an office bearer of the "Jewellers Association of Greater E
Andheri". The contention of the petitioner was that respondent Nos. 3 and 4
viz., M.A.K. Sheikh and Avinash Dharamadhikari herein had entered into a
criminal conspiracy against him as he had exposed their illegal acts and
corrupt practices in the media on behalf of the "JEWELLERS ASSOCIATION
... OF GREATER ANDHERI" in furtherance whereof they registered five false F
cases against him during the period 25.9.2003 to 16.10.2003. During the
purported investigation of the said cases, the photographs of the petitioner
were allegedly published in the media with a news story that he was a hard-
core criminal. Details of the publications in various newspapers are contained
in sub-paragraphs (a) to (g) of the Special Leave Petition. The said articles G
were said to have been published in different newspapers owned/published
by respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, I 0 and 11.

../ It is his contention that several articles published in different newspapers
were false and baseless, the details whereof have been stated in paragraphs
9, I 0 and 11 of the Special Leave Petition. H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Legal notices were served for registration of First Information Reports r
by the petitioner against Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. He had also addressed
several letters to high dignitaries including the President of India, the Prime
Minister of India, the Chief Justice of India, the Home Minister of India, the
Chairman, NHRC and the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. He is
also said to have sent a fax to the Governor of Maharashtra. Pursuant to and
B in furtherance of the purported representations made by the petitioner to the
Governor of the State of Maharashtra, he was called to the Raj Bhawan and
was given a hearing by the ADC of the Governor. However, allegedly, no
further action was taken by the said authority. He filed a Criminal Writ
Petition questioning the alleged high-handed activities of D.N. Nagar Police
C and made a request for enquiry into the whole episode by the Central Bureau
of Investigation. He filed a Transfer Petition before this Court for transfer of
the said writ petition. However, the same was dismissed as withdrawn.

The criminal writ petition filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition
No. 2611 of 2004 was dismissed for default on 27.1.2005. The petitioner
D made his Advocate Mr. Akhilesh Singh responsible for dismissal of the said
writ petition, for which he is said to have filed a complaint against him under
Section 35 of the Advocates Act. However, on the premise that no action had
been taken by the concerned authorities, he again filed a writ petition before
the Bombay High Court praying for various reliefs which had been referred
E to in details in the impugned judgment. A Division Bench of the High Court
of Bombay dismissed the said writ petition stating:-

"The petitioner appears in person and submits that action against the
respondents is liable to be taken and the above quoted prayers are
liable to be granted. For each of the prayers mentioned above, the
F petitioner has effective remedy in appropriate courts. If he has
grievance of he being malicious the remedy for him to file a complaint
is open. If he is harassed by the police officials, criminal complaint
against such police officials can be lodged in appropriate criminal
court. If he has been defamed action for defamation can be taken in
appropriate criminal court. If he wants damages for lost of prestige
G he has adequate remedy to claim si;ch damages by way of a suit.
Thus, for each prayer an independent efficacious remedy is available
to the petitioner. Instead the petitioner has chosen to come under
Article 226 with these omnibus prayers that there be investigation
into the conduct of police department and appropriate action including
H award of compensation be given to the petitioner ... "
SANJAY SITARAM KHEMKA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [S.B. SINHA,!.] 945

The Petitioner is, thus, before us. A
Before adverting to the contentions raised by the Petitioner who appeared
in person, we may notice a disturbing fact. The Petitioner had filed a writ
petition being Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 2006 on the self same grounds
before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which was,
however, dismissed on 20.02.2006. In this case, a detailed counter-affidavit B
had been filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra affirmed by one Mr.
.. Pradeep, Inspector of Police, attached to the D.N. Nagar Police Station. The
said deponent has affirmed that various Complaint Petitions came to be filed
against the petitioner. It is stated that during investigation of the said cases
several facts in regard to involvement of the petitioner in connection with C
several offences came to light. He has stated:-

"The past of the petitioner is quite controversial he was involved in
different business and duped the many businessman even advertising
agencies, newspaper publisher and hotel industries. He pose himself
as a jeweler, diamond merchant but he has no knowledge of said D
business and under the pretext of diamond merchant and jewelers he
duped the shopowners."
·'
One leading publishing house of a newspaper also filed a counter-
' were on the
affidavit stating that all the publications made in the newspaper
basis of official statements made by police officials and as such no motive E
can be attributed to ic.

The Petitioner has filed rejoinders to the said counter-affidavits.

Having regard to the allegations and counter allegations made by the
parties before us, we are of the opinion that no releif can be granted to the F
Petitioner in this petition. The writ petition has rightly been held by the High
Court to be involving disputed questions of fact. The petitioner has several
causes of action wherefor he is required to pursue specific remedies provided
therefor in law.

A Writ Petition, as has rightly been pointed out by the High Court, for G
grant of the said reliefs, was not the remedy. A matter involving a great deal
of disputed questions of fact cannot be dealt with by the High Court in
exercise of its power of judicial review. As the High Court or this Court
cannot, in view of the nature of the controversy as also the disputed questions
of fact, go into the merit of the matter; evidently no relief can be granted to H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A the Petitioner at this stage. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned I'
judgment of the High Court does not contain any factual or legal error
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution.

Furthermore, the Petitioner had also filed a writ petition under Article
B 32 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner at the time of issuance of
notice in this matter did not point out the said fact.

In view of the conduct of the Petitioner also, he is not entitled to any
equitable relief in the petition for special leave.

C For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this petition.
It is dismissed accordingly.

N.J. Special Leave Petition dismissed.