Supreme Court of India
THE AUROVILLE FOUNDATIONversusNATASHA STOREY
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 348
- Decided
- 16 March 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- BELA M TRIVEDI
Holding
A writ petition filed with suppressed material facts is an abuse of process and must be dismissed, and the Residents' Assembly has no statutory right to sit on committees; therefore the High Court’s order setting aside the standing order is erroneous and is set aside.
Summary
The Auroville Foundation (appellant) appealed against a Madras High Court order that set aside a standing order appointing members nominated by the Residents' Assembly to the Auroville Town Development Council. The respondent, Natasha Storey, had filed a second writ petition seeking the same relief as an earlier petition she had filed and lost, without disclosing that earlier dismissal. The Supreme Court examined whether the doctrine of "clean hands" and non‑suppression of material facts applies to writ petitions under Art. 226, and whether the Residents' Assembly has any statutory right to be part of committees constituted by the Governing Board. The Court held that the doctrine applies with full force and that the respondent’s non‑disclosure amounted to abuse of process, warranting dismissal of the petition. It also found that the Auroville Foundation Act vests all powers in the Governing Board and that the Residents' Assembly can only advise, not sit on committees. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with a cost order against the respondent.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the doctrine of clean hands and the requirement of full disclosure of material facts in writ petitions under Art. 226.
- Whether the Residents' Assembly has a statutory right to be part of any committee or council constituted by the Governing Board of the Auroville Foundation.
- Whether the standing order dated 01‑06‑2022, which replaced Residents' Assembly nominees with Governing Board nominees, is legally valid.
Legislation cited
- Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980
- Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1980
- Auroville Foundation Act, 1988s. 10, s. 11(3), s. 16(1), s. 17, s. 19, s. 31, s. 32
- Auroville Foundation Rules, 1997s. Rule 5
Subjects
Doctrine of clean handsNon-suppression of material factsResidents' Assembly rightsExtraordinary jurisdictionAbuse of process of lawAuroville Foundation ActStanding ordersMaster PlanCost order
Judgment
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 469 : 2025 INSC 348
The Auroville Foundation
v.
Natasha Storey
(Civil Appeal No. 13651 of 2024)
17 March 2025
[Bela M. Trivedi* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the applicability of the doctrine of “clean hands
and non-suppression of material facts” to the writ petition filed
by the respondent seeking substantially the same relief without
disclosing the material fact of the dismissal of earlier petition;
the correctness of the impugned order passed by the High Court
entertaining the said writ petition; and as regards the right of
the Residents’ Assembly to be part of any committee or council
constituted by the Governing Board of the appellant Foundation.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Invocation of extraordinary
jurisdiction of High Court – Applicability of doctrine of
“clean hands and non-suppression of material facts – On
facts, disgruntled residents of Auroville to obstruct the
development work of Auroville as per the Master Plan filed
unnecessary petitions in the High Court one after the other –
Respondent filed writ petition challenging the office order
issued by the appellant Foundation and sought direction
against the Foundation to appoint the members nominated
by the Residents’Assembly through its working Council to
the Auroville Town Development Council – Dismissed by
the High Court holding that the activities provided u/s.19,
to be undertaken by the Residents’ Assembly are only in
the nature of supplementing and not supplanting the main
powers and functions vested with the Governing Board –
Respondent again filed writ petition seeking substantially
the same relief without disclosing the material fact of the
dismissal of earlier petition – Preliminary objections by the
appellant regarding the maintainability of the petition and
* Author
470 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
suppression of material facts by the respondent, however,
High Court without dealing with the same, entertained the
writ petition – Correctness:
Held: Doctrine of “clean hands and non-suppression of material
facts” is applicable with full force to every proceedings before any
judicial forum – Party invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the
High Court u/Art.226 must come with clean hands and disclose
all correct and material facts in his Writ Petition – If it is brought
to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has been guilty of
suppression of material and relevant facts or has not come with
clean hands, such conduct must be seriously viewed by the
courts as the abuse of process of law and the petition must be
dismissed on that ground alone without entering into the merits of
the matter – Non-disclosure of the material facts at the instance
of the respondent should have been seriously viewed by the
High Court, as the abuse of the process of court – Furthermore,
neither the Act nor the Rules contemplate or confer any right
upon the Residents’ Assembly, or upon an individual resident
of Auroville to be part of any committee/council constituted by
the Governing Board for the efficient discharge of its duties
and functions under the Act – Governing Board is vested with
all the powers and is empowered to discharge all the functions
as may be exercised or discharged by the Foundation, and that
the general superintendence, direction and management of the
affairs of the Foundation vests in the Governing Board alone –
Functions of the Residents’ Assembly are confined only to advise
the Governing Board in respect of the activities relating to the
residents of Auroville and to make recommendations as specified
in s.19, and not any further – Though, s.19(1)(c) required the
Residents’ Assembly to assist the Governing Board to formulate
the Master Plan of Auroville, however, the said stage already over,
when the Master Plan was prepared by the Governing Board in
consultation with the Residents’ Assembly and was then approved
by the Central Government – Thus, the impugned Standing Order
does not suffer from any legal infirmity – High Court misdirected
itself in misinterpreting the provisions of the Act and in setting
aside the impugned Notification containing the Standing Order –
Impugned order being highly erroneous set aside – Writ Petition
filed by the respondent before the High Court was to abuse the
process of law, to hamper the development of Auroville and to
cause obstructions in the smooth functioning of the Governing
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 471
The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey
Board of the Foundation – Cost of Rs.50,000/- imposed on the
respondent – Auroville Foundation Act, 1988 – ss.11(3), 19, 16(1),
17 – Auroville Foundation Rules, 1997 – r.5. [Paras 9-11, 15-19]
Case Law Cited
S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
[2004] 3 SCR 56 : AIR 2004 SC 2421; General Manager, Haryana
Roadways v. Jai Bhagwan & Anr. [2008] 3 SCR 1156 : (2008) 4
SCC 127; Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India [2007] 9 SCR
112 : (2007) 8 SCC 449 – referred to.
List of Acts
Auroville Foundation Act, 1988; Auroville Foundation Rules, 1997;
Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980.
List of Keywords
Doctrine of clean hands; Non-suppression of material facts; Right
of the Residents’ Assembly, to be part of any committee or council
constituted by the Governing Board; Extraordinary jurisdiction of
High Court; Disgruntled residents of Auroville; Obstruction of the
development work of Auroville as per the Master Plan; Working
Council to the Auroville Town Development Council; Suppression
of material facts; Judicial forum; Abuse of process of law;
Non-disclosure of the material facts; Master Plan of Auroville; Cost
of Rs.50,000/-; Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1980.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13651 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in WP No. 25882 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
N. Venkatramani, AG, Vaibhav R. Venkatesh, K. Shiva, Balaji
Srinivasan.
Advs. for the Respondent:
MV Swaroop, Nishanth Patil.
472 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Bela M. Trivedi, J.
1. The legality and validity of the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2024
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition
No. 25882 of 2022, allowing the said Writ Petition filed by the
Respondent-Natasha Storey and setting aside the impugned
Notification dated 01.06.2022 containing the Standing Order No.
01/2022 issued by the Appellant-Foundation, is under challenge
before this Court by way of instant appeal.
2. Before adverting to issues involved in the Appeal, it would be apposite
to peep into the history of Auroville, and the objects and reasons
of enacting the Auroville Foundation Act (hereinafter referred to as
the “A.F. Act”).
3. Prelude on the History of Auroville: -
(I) In 1965, the “Mother” (Mirra Alfassa, a French Lady), a spiritual
collaborator of Sri Aurobindo (a Spiritual reformer, Philosopher
and Educationist), envisioned to launch the project of Auroville,
with an aim to establish an international universal township,
where men and women of all countries are able to live in peace
and harmony, above all creeds, all politics and all nationalities
and to realise human unity. The project of Auroville was formerly
inaugurated by the “Mother” in 28.02.1968. The Charter of
Auroville given by the “Mother” was the following:
“1. Auroville belongs to nobody in particular. Auroville
belongs to humanity as a whole. But to live in
Auroville one must be a willing servitor of the Divine
Consciousness.
2. Auroville will be the place of an unending education,
of constant progress and a youth that never ages.
3. Auroville wants to be the bridge between the past
and the future. Taking advantage of all discoveries
from without and from within, Auroville will boldly
spring towards future realisations.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 473
The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey
4. Auroville will be a site of material and spiritual
researches for a living embodiment of an actual
Human Unity.”
(II) The original Master Plan of the Auroville was conceptualized
in Galaxy shape, and was planned to eventually accommodate
50,000 residents, a number which the “Mother” considered
sufficient to allow the experiment in human unity to take on a
meaningful and significant dimension. Picture of Galaxy Model
Plan conceptualized in 1968 is shown below:
(III) The project Auroville was legally started as the project of
a charitable organization, “The Sri Aurobindo Society” in
Pondicherry, which was created to diffuse Sri Aurobindo’s
thoughts. The development of Auroville in the initial few years
showed good progress and it further developed at a rapid pace.
Number of Indians and foreigners settled down in Auroville and
devoted themselves to various activities showing a remarkable
harmony amongst the members of Auroville, which gave a
promise to the Government of India of an early fulfilment of
the ideals for which Auroville was established. It was also
encouraged by UNESCO and other International Organizations
of the world. However, after the “Mother” passed away in
1973, the situation changed, and number of complaints came
to be received by the Government of India with regard to the
mismanagement in the working of the Sri Aurobindo Society.
Following the requests by majority of Auroville residents, the
Government of India issued a Presidential Ordinance called
the Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1980, later
replaced by the Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980.
474 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Finally, the Government of India created a unique status for
Auroville by passing the A.F. Act.
4. The Provisions of A.F. Act: -
(I) The long title of the said A.F. Act of 1988 enacted by the
Parliament on 29.09.1988 reads as under:
“THE AUROVILLE FOUNDATION ACT, 1988
ACT NO. 54 OF 1988
[29th September, 1988]
An Act to provide for the acquisition and transfer
of the undertakings of Auroville and to vest such
undertakings in a foundation established for
the purpose with a view to making long-term
arrangements for the better management and further
development of Auroville in accordance with its
original charter and for matters connected therewith
or incidental thereto.
WHEREAS Auroville was founded by the “Mother” on
the 28th day of February, 1968 as an international
cultural township;
AND WHEREAS in view of the serious difficulties
which had arisen with regard to the management of
Auroville, the management thereof had been vested
in the Central Government for a limited period by
the Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980 (59
of 1980);
AND WHEREAS under the management of the
Central Government and under the overall guidance
of the International Advisory Council set up under the
aforesaid Act, Auroville had been able to develop
during the last eight years along several important
lines and the residents of Auroville have also carried
on activities for the development of Auroville which
need further encouragement and consolidation;
AND WHEREAS Auroville was developed as a
cultural township with the aid of funds received from
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 475
The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey
different organisations in and outside India as also
from substantial grants received from the Central
and State Governments, and the United Nations
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation also
had, from time to time, reflected in its resolutions that
the project on Auroville is contributing to international
understanding and promotion of peace;
AND WHEREAS for the purpose of encouraging,
continuing and consolidating the aforesaid activities
of Auroville, it is necessary in the public interest
to acquire the undertakings of Auroville and to
vest them in a body corporate established for the
purpose;
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Thirty-ninth Year
of the Republic of India as follows: —”
(II) The relevant provisions contained in Chapter-III, germane for
the purpose of deciding the present Appeal are reproduced for
ready reference:
“10. Establishment and incorporation of the
Foundation. —
(1) With effect from such date as the Central
Government may, by notification, appoint in this
behalf, there shall be established for the purpose
of this Act, a Foundation, to be called the Auroville
Foundation.
(2) The Foundation shall be a body corporate by the
name aforesaid, having perpetual succession and a
common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose
of property, both movable and immovable, and to
contract and shall by the said name sue and be sued.
(3) The Foundation shall consist of the following
authorities, namely: —
(a) the Governing Board;
(b) the Residents’ Assembly;
(c) the Auroville International Advisory Council
476 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
11. Governing Board. —
(1) The Governing Board shall consist of the following
members, namely: —
(i) not more than seven members to be nominated
by the Central Government from amongst persons,
who have—
(a) rendered valuable service to Auroville;
(b) dedicated themselves to the ideals of life-
long education, synthesis of material and spiritual
researches or human unity;
(c) contributed significantly in activities that are
being persued or are envisaged to be promoted in
Auroville, including activities relating to environment,
afforestation, arts and crafts, industry, agriculture,
humanities, sciences and integral yoga;
(ii) two representatives of the Central Government
to be nominated by it.
(2) The Central Government shall nominate a
Chairman of the Governing Board from amongst
the members nominated by it under clause (i) of
sub-section (1).
(3) The general superintendence, direction and
management of the affairs of the Foundation shall
vest in the Governing Board which may exercise all
the powers and discharge all the functions which
may be exercised or discharged by the Foundation.
(4) The Governing Board may associate with itself
in such manner and for such purposes as may
be prescribed, any persons whose assistance or
advice it may desire in complying with any of the
provisions of this Act and a person so associated
shall have the right to take part in the discussions
of the Governing Board relevant to the purposes for
which he has been associated, but shall not have
the right to vote.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 477
The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey
(5) No act or proceeding of the Governing Board or
any committee appointed by it under section 16 shall
be invalidated merely by reason of, —
(a) any vacancy in, or any defect in the constitution
of, the Governing Board or such committee; or
(b) any defect in the nomination of a person acting as a
member of the Governing Board or such committee; or
(c) any irregularity in the procedure of the Governing
Board or such committee not affecting the merits of
the case.
12 to 15…………..
16. Committees of the Governing Board. —
(1) The Governing Board may appoint such committees
as may be necessary for the efficient discharge of its
duties and performance of its functions under this Act.
(2) The Governing Board shall have the power to
co-opt as members of any committee appointed
under sub-section (1), such number of persons who
are not members of the Governing Board as it may
think fit, and the persons so co-opted shall have the
right to attend the meetings of the committee, and
take part in the proceedings of the committee, but
shall not have the right to vote.
17. Powers and functions of the Governing
Board. —
The powers and functions of the Governing Board
shall be—
(a) to promote the ideals of Auroville and to coordinate
activities and services of Auroville in consultation
with the Residents‟ Assembly for the purposes of
cohesion and integration of Auroville;
(b) to review the basic policies and the programmes
of Auroville and give necessary directions for the
future development of Auroville;
478 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(c) to accord approval to the programmes of Auroville
drawn up by the Residents‟ Assembly;
(d) to monitor and review the activities of Auroville
and to secure proper management of the properties
vested in the Foundation under section 6 and other
properties relatable to Auroville;
(e) to prepare a master-plan of Auroville in consultation
with the Residents‟ Assembly and to ensure
development of Auroville as so planned;
(f) to authorise and coordinate fund-raising for
Auroville and to secure proper arrangements for
receipts and disbursement of funds for Auroville.
18. Residents’ Assembly. —
(1) The Residents‟ Assembly shall consist of all the
residents of Auroville who are for the time being
entered in the register of residents maintained under
this section.
(2) The Secretary to the Governing Board shall
maintain the register of residents in such manner
as may be prescribed and all the persons who are
residents of Auroville and who are of the age of
eighteen years and above are entitled to have their
names entered in the register on an application made
to the Secretary in such form as may be prescribed.
(3) All the names of residents, which have been
included in the register maintained by the Administrator
appointed under section 5 of the Auroville (Emergency
Provisions) Act, 1980 (59 of 1980) immediately before
the appointed day, shall be deemed to have been
included in the register maintained under this section.
19. Functions of Residents’ Assembly.
(1) The Resident’s Assembly shall perform such
functions as are required by this Act and shall advise
the Governing Board in respect of all activities relating
to the residents of Auroville.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 479
The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the foregoing
powers, the Residents‟ Assembly may—
(a) allow the admission or cause the termination of
persons in the register of residents in accordance
with the regulations made under section 32;
(b) organise various activities relating to Auroville;
(c) formulate the master plan of Auroville and make
necessary recommendations for the recognition
of organisations engaged in activities relatable to
Auroville for the approval of the Governing Board;
(d) recommend proposals for raising funds for
Auroville for the approval of the Governing Board.
(3) For the purpose of carrying of its functions, the
Residents‟ Assembly may establish such committees
as it may consider necessary which shall represent
it in relation to the functions to be performed by the
Governing Board.”
(III) Section 31 empowers the Central Government to make rules
for carrying out the provisions of the A.F. Act. Accordingly, the
Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of
Education) vide the notification dated 10.11.1997 has framed the
rules called the “Auroville Foundation Rules, 1997 (hereinafter
referred to as the said “A.F. Rules”) in exercise of the powers
conferred by Section 31 of the A.F. Act.
Rule 5 of the said Rules states about the Committees of the
Foundation, which reads as under: -
“5. Committees
The following shall be the Committees of the
Foundation, namely –
(a)………
(b)……..
(c) Such other Committee or committees as may
be constituted by the Governing Board under
sub-section (1) of section 16 or by the Residents
480 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Assembly under sub-section (3) of section 19, as
the case may be
(2) Subject to the provision of sub-rule (1), the
Governing Board shall determine the composition
and functions of every Committee constituted by it
The Residents’ Assembly shall determine the
composition and functions of every Committee
constituted by it
(4)………..”
(IV) Section 32 of the A.F. Act empowers the Governing Board to
make regulations not in consistent with the Act and the Rules
made thereunder, for enabling the Governing Board to discharge
its functions under the Act.
5. Constitution of Auroville Foundation and its Standing Orders-
I. The Government of India notified the Constitution of Auroville
Foundation as a Statutory body on 29.01.1991 under the A.F.
Act. At present it is under the realm of Ministry of Human
Resources Development (Department of Higher Education) as
the Central Government Undertaking.
II. As transpiring from the record, the original Galaxy Plan
envisioned by the “Mother” in 1968 was the plan with four zones
in Auroville, with the centripetal force, being the “Matrimandir”.
The said Galaxy Plan was revised in 1972 as the First Master
Plan called the “Town Plan”. As the A.F. Act required statutory
Master Plan as contemplated in Section 17(e) read with Section
19(2)(c) of the said A.F. Act, the Master Plan was approved
by the Governing Board and the Residents’ Assembly of the
Appellant Foundation in 1999. The said 1999 Master Plan
was further approved by the Competent Authority- the Town
and Country Planning Organisation (TCPO), Ministry of Urban
Development, on 15.02.2001 under the Model Town and Country
Planning Act. The said Master Plan was notified on 16.08.2010
and published in the Gazette on 28.08.2010.
III. In view of Section 11(3) of the A.F. Act, the Governing Board
decided, that “Standing Orders” not inconsistent with the
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 481
The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey
provisions of the A.F. Act and the Rules made thereunder, on the
matters that the Governing Board may consider appropriate and
necessary, shall be notified from time to time, by the Auroville
Foundation. The said Resolution was notified in the Gazette
of India, Part III, dated 05.03.2011 by the Ministry of Human
Resources Development (Department of Higher Education).
IV. Since the said approved Master Plan prescribed the “Town
Development Council” as the body for implementing the Master
Plan with the organizational structure as in Appendix V of the
Master Plan, the Governing Board in terms of the provisions
of the Master Plan, constituted the Town Development Council
for the purpose of implementation of the Master Plan, vide the
Standing Order No.6/2011 dated 01.05.2011, which was notified
in the Government of India Gazette, Part III, dated 11.06.2011.
The said Standing Order dated 01.05.2011 came to be replaced
by the Standing Order No.1/2019 dated 04.06.2019.
V. Again, the said Standing Order dated 04.06.2019 came to be
replaced by the Standing Order No.1/2022 dated 01.06.2022,
which was notified in the Gazette of India, Part III, on 15.07.2022.
On 01.06.2022, the Auroville Foundation issued the Office
Order for the re-constitution of the Auroville Town Development
Council (ATDC). The Appellant-Foundation thereafter also
issued a Corrigendum dated 07.12.2022, to the Standing Order
No. 1/2022 dated 01.06.2022, in order to clarify and add the
source of statutory power in the Preamble to the said original
Standing Order dated 01.06.2022. The said Corrigendum was
also published in the Gazette of India, Part III, on 10.12.2022.
6. Series of Litigations: -
It appears that some disgruntled residents of Auroville, instead
of cooperating the Governing Board of the Foundation in the
implementation of the said legally approved Master Plan and in
carrying out the development work of Auroville as per the said Master
Plan envisioned by the “Mother,” started causing obstructions by
filing the Petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Madras one
after the other, dragging the Appellant-Foundation into unnecessary
litigations. As transpiring from the records, the following litigations
came to be filed.
482 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(i) A Writ Petition being No.17181/2020 came to be filed by one Mr.
M. Ayyanarappan, challenging some of the clauses of Auroville
Master Plan 2010 after the years of its approval and publication
in the Official Gazette. The said petition came to be dismissed
as withdrawn by the Division Bench of the High Court vide the
order dated 15.02.2022.
(ii) Two other petitions being Writ Petition No.18220/2021 and Writ
Petition No.597/2022 came to be filed by the petitioner Mr. A.
Suriya, the son of the earlier petitioner Mr. M. Ayyanarappan,
challenging some of the clauses of Auroville Master Plan, 2010,
and for restraining the Appellant-Foundation from implementing
the Auroville Master Plan Perspective 2025. The said two
petitions came to be dismissed as withdrawn by the Division
Bench vide the order dated 20.01.2022, granting liberty to
the said petitioner to avail the remedy in accordance with law
against the infraction of his personal interest.
(iii) The said Writ Petitioner, Mr. A. Suriya filed another Writ Petition
No.12378/2022 again challenging some of the clauses of the
Auroville Universal Township Master Plan Perspective 2025. The
said Writ Petition came to be dismissed by the Division Bench
by passing a detailed order on 07.06.2022, on the ground of
maintainability and delay of more than 12 years in challenging
the Gazette Notification dated 28.08.2010. It was also observed
therein by the Division Bench inter alia that the Master Plan
cannot otherwise be subjected to challenge unless it is carved
out in violation of the Constitutional or Statutory provisions.
(iv) Some other Writ Petitions being No.11738/2022 and others came
to be filed by one Krishna Devanandan and Others in respect
of the functioning of the Appellant-Foundation, particularly on
the imposition of restrictions on the Residents’ Assembly for
non-updation of the Register of the Residents. It appears that
the said petitions came to be allowed by the Single Bench vide
the order dated 12.08.2022 issuing various directions including
the directions to the Secretary of Auroville Foundation to give
wide publicity of its effective administration for updation of
the Register of the Residents Assembly, and further directing
the four statutory bodies of the Foundation not to take any
policy decision which would alter the existing structure and
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 483
The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey
working of the Auroville Foundation, till the Register of the
Residents’ Assembly was updated. The said order passed by
the Single Bench having been challenged by the Appellant-
Foundation before the Division Bench, the same was stayed
by the Division Bench vide the orders dated 26.08.2022, in
W.A.No.1961-1962/2022. The said interim order was continued
till the disposal of the Appeals on 09.09.2022.
(v) The Respondent herein i.e. Natasha Storey filed the Writ
Petition being No. 22895/2022 challenging the office order
dated 01.06.2022 bearing no. AF/M/63 issued by the
Appellant-Foundation and seeking direction against the
Foundation to appoint the members nominated by the Residents’
Assembly through its working Council to the ATDC. The said
petition came to be dismissed by the Single Bench vide the
order dated 13.10.2022, however the Court directed the
Appellant-Foundation to issue appropriate corrigendum to the
impugned office order dated 01.06.2022, tracing the power under
which the said order was issued. The Foundation accordingly
issued the Corrigendum dated 07.12.2022 to the Standing
Order dated 01.06.2022.
(vi) The Respondent Natasha Storey again filed the Writ Petition
being no. 25882/2022 seeking almost the same relief as
sought in the earlier petition, challenging the notification no.
AF/M/63/2022-23 dated 01.06.2022 containing the Standing
Order No.1/2022 issued by the Appellant-Foundation, published
in the official gazette on 15.07.2022. The Division Bench vide
the impugned judgment and order dated 15.03.2024 allowed the
said Writ Petition and set aside the said impugned Notification
and the Standing Order issued by the Appellant-Foundation.
(vii) This Appeal emanates from the said impugned judgment
and order dated 15.03.2024, passed in the Writ Petition
No.25882/2002.
(viii) It may also be noted that the Respondent-Natasha had also
filed an application as an intervenor, in the proceedings being
O.A. No.239/2021 filed by one Navroz Kersasp Mody before
the National Green Tribunal, Chennai. The Appeals being C.A.s
Nos. 5781-5782/22 arising out of the orders passed by the NGT
in the said proceedings, were also heard simultaneously by this
484 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Court, along with the present Appeal, and are being decided
simultaneously by a separate judgment.
7. ANALYSIS
From the above array of litigations, it is explicitly clear that a small
group of disgruntled residents of Auroville, who instead of supporting
and cooperating the Governing Body of Appellant-Foundation, in
implementing the approved Master Plan and developing Auroville
as envisioned by the “Mother,” kept themselves busy by filing the
litigations one after the other, and causing obstructions in the smooth
implementation of the Master Plan. As narrated hereinabove one
Mr. Suriya and his father filed series of petitions one after the other.
They all came to be dismissed by the High Court. Then the present
Respondent-Natasha Storey herself filed Writ Petition No. 22895 of
2022 seeking almost the same relief as sought in the Writ Petition
of the present proceedings, challenging the Office Order dated
01.06.2022 issued by the Appellant-Foundation. The said earlier Writ
Petition having been dismissed by the High Court vide the Order
dated 13.10.2022, again she filed the Writ Petition No. 25882 of
2022, without disclosing the fact of her filing of the earlier petition,
and the dismissal of the same. The Appellant-Foundation (who was
respondent in the said Writ Petition) had raised specific preliminary
objections in its counter affidavit regarding the maintainability of
the petition and regarding the suppression of material facts by the
respondent.
8. However, unfortunately the High Court without dealing with such a
serious issue, entertained the Writ Petition of the respondent.
9. It is no more res integra that the Doctrine of “Clean hands and
non-suppression of material facts” is applicable with full force to
every proceedings before any judicial forum. The party invoking
extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India must come with clean hands and disclose all
correct and material facts in his Writ Petition. If it is brought to the
notice of the Court that the petition has been guilty of suppression
of material and relevant facts or has not come with clean hands,
such conduct must be seriously viewed by the courts as the abuse
of process of law and the petition must be dismissed on that ground
alone without entering into the merits of the matter.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 485
The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey
10. As held in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar
& Ors.,1 as a general rule, suppression of material fact by a litigant
disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been
evolved out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing
the process of court by deceiving it. Similar view has been taken in
General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Jai Bhagwan & Anr.2,
in Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India3 etc.
11. In the instant case, the Respondent-Natasha Storey had challenged
the Office Order dated 01.06.2022 by filing the earlier Writ Petition
No. 22895 of 2022, and the High Court while dismissing the same
vide its Order dated 13.10.2022 had categorically held, after
considering the various provisions of the A.F. Act, that the activities
which are provided under Section 19 of the Act, to be undertaken
by the Residents’ Assembly are only in the nature of supplementing
and not supplanting the main powers and functions vested with the
Governing Board under the provisions of the Act, and that the writ
petitioner could not claim that she being a member of the Assembly,
the right of the Assembly was getting affected, or the functions of
the Assembly as entrusted through the provisions of the Act were
getting affected. Despite the fact that the said judgment and order
passed in Writ Petition No. 22895 of 2022 was not challenged by
the respondent any further, and had become final, the second Writ
Petition was filed by her (i.e., Writ Petition no. 25882/2022 in the
present proceedings), seeking substantially the same reliefs without
disclosing the said material fact of dismissal of earlier petition. The
non-disclosure of the material facts at the instance of the respondent
should have been seriously viewed by the High Court, as the abuse
of the process of court.
12. So far as the merits of the Appeal are concerned, the learned Senior
Advocate Mr. R. Venkatramani for the appellant had strenuously taken
the court to the record of the case from which it appears that the
Appellant-Foundation is a Statutory body established under the A.F.
Act, and is under the realm of the Government of India, in the Ministry
of Human Resource Development (Department of Education). The
1 AIR 2004 SC 2421
2 (2008) 4 SCC 127
3 (2007) 8 SCC 449
486 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
said Foundation consists of three authorities i.e., (a) The Governing
Board (b) The Residents’ Assembly (c) The Auroville International
Advisory Council. As per Section 11(3), the general superintendence,
direction and management of the affairs of the Foundation vest in the
Governing Board, which is empowered to exercise all the powers and
discharge all the functions which may be exercised or discharged
by the Foundation. Section 16 of the Act empowers the Governing
Board to appoint such Committees as may be necessary for the
efficient discharge of its duties and performance of its functions
under the Act. The powers and functions of the Governing Board
are prescribed in Section 17. Clause (e) of Section 17 pertains to
the preparation of Master Plan of Auroville in consultation with the
Residents’ Assembly, and to ensure development of Auroville as so
planned. Meaning thereby, as per Section 17(e), the Governing Board
was required to prepare a Master Plan of Auroville in consultation
with the Residents’ Assembly, and further to ensure development of
Auroville as per the said Master Plan.
13. As already discussed earlier, the Master Plan of Auroville as envisioned
and envisaged by the “Mother” as an international universal Township
dedicated to human unity and international understanding, described
by her in the Auroville Charter, was approved by the Governing
Board in consultation with the Residents’ Assembly and was further
approved by the Government of India in Ministry of Human Resource
Development (Department of Higher Education) vide the letter dated
12.04.2001. It was also notified by the Auroville Foundation with
the approval of the Central Government, in the Gazette of India,
Part III on 16.08.2010. It was only to ensure the development of
Auroville as per the said approved Master Plan, the Auroville Town
Development Council (ATDC) was constituted as per the Standing
Order dated 01.05.2011 issued by the Governing Board. The said
Standing Order was replaced by the Standing Order No. 01 of 2019
dated 04.06.2019, and the said Standing Order No. 01 of 2019 has
been further replaced by the Standing Order No. 01 of 2022 dated
01.06.2022 vide the Notification published in the Gazette of India
dated 15.07.2022.
14. Though it was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr.
M.V. Swaroop appearing for the Respondent-Writ Petitioner that the
impugned Standing Order replacing the nominees of the Residents’
Assembly with the nominees of Governing Board of the Foundation
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 487
The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey
was not in consonance with the provisions of the said Act and that the
Governing Board did not have the power to appoint any committee
of its own as contained in the impugned Standing Order dated
01.06.2022 and the Office Order dated 01.06.2022, we do not find any
substance in the same. The ATDC was constituted and reconstituted
from time to time by the Governing Board by issuing the Standing
Orders, for the proper implementation of the approved Master Plan.
It may be noted that in view of Section 11(3), the Governing Board
vide the Regulation No.AF/1/2011/Regulations, had also decided that
“Standing Orders, not in consistent with the provisions of the Act and
the Rules made thereunder, and without prejudice to the generality
of the laws enacted by the Parliament of India and/or the legislatures
of the States and the Indian Territory, on all the matters covered by
the provisions of Section 11(3), and also such other matters that
Governing Board may consider appropriate and necessary, shall
be notified by the Auroville Foundation from time to time. The said
Regulation was also notified in the Government of India Gazette on
05.03.2011. The said Regulation clearly empowered the Governing
Board of the Appellant-Foundation to issue the Standing Orders on all
the matters covered by the provisions of Section 11(3) as also such
other matters that the Governing Board may consider appropriate
and necessary.
15. Further, Section 16 of the Act also empowers the Governing Board
to appoint such committees as may be necessary for the efficient
discharge of its duties and performance of its functions under the
Act. Even as per Rule 5 of the said Rules, the Governing Board
is empowered to constitute the committees under sub-section (1)
of Section 16. As per Rule 5(2), it is the Governing Board alone
which has to determine the composition and functions of every
committee constituted by it. Neither the said A.F. Act nor the
said Rules contemplate or confer any right upon the Residents’
Assembly, much less upon an individual resident of Auroville to
be part of any committee or council constituted by the Governing
Board for the efficient discharge of its duties and functions under
the Act.
16. From the conjoint reading of the provisions of the A.F. Act and the
said Rules, there remains no shadow of doubt that the Governing
Board is vested with all the powers and is empowered to discharge
all the functions as may be exercised or discharged by the
488 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Foundation, and that the general superintendence, direction and
management of the affairs of the Foundation vests in the Governing
Board alone. Though, it is true that Section 19(1)(c) required the
Residents’ Assembly to assist the Governing Board to formulate
the Master Plan of Auroville, however, the said stage was already
over, when the Master Plan was prepared by the Governing Board
in consultation with the Residents’ Assembly as contemplated in
Section 17(e), and was then approved by the Central Government,
Ministry of Human Resource Development way back in 2001. After
the publication of the said Master Plan, the Governing Board had
issued the Standing Orders from time to time for the implementation
of the said approved Master Plan and for the development of
Auroville as planned.
17. Having regard to the statutory provisions in the Act and the Rules,
we are of the opinion that the impugned Standing Order 01.06.2022
containing the Standing Order No. 01/2022 does not suffer from any
legal infirmity. There is no legal or statutory right conferred upon the
Residents’ Assembly or upon an individual resident to be part of any
committee/council constituted by the Governing Board in exercise of
its powers conferred under Section 11(3), 16(1) and 17(e) of the said
Act read with Rule 5(1) and 5(2) of the said Rules. The functions of
the Residents’ Assembly are confined only to advise the Governing
Board in respect of the activities relating to the residents of Auroville
and to make recommendations as specified in Section 19 of the Act,
and not any further.
18. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the High Court
has thoroughly misdirected itself in misinterpreting the provisions
of the A.F. Act and in setting aside the impugned Notification
containing the Standing Order dated 01.06.2022. The impugned
Order being highly erroneous deserves to be set aside, and is
hereby set aside.
19. As demonstrated earlier, some disgruntled and discontented
residents kept on filing petitions one after the other dragging the
Appellant-Foundation into unnecessary litigations. The Writ Petition
filed by the respondent before the High Court was one of such
ill-motivated petitions filed by her to abuse the process of law, to
hamper the development of Auroville and to cause obstructions in
the smooth functioning of the Governing Board of the Foundation.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 489
The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey
Hence, the Appeal is allowed with cost of Rs.50,000/- to be
deposited by the respondent before the Supreme Court Legal
Service Committee within two weeks from today. The office to
follow the compliance.
20. The Appeal stands allowed accordingly.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Doctrine of clean hands"Sign in to search