IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

&

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHA LY

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1942

WA.No.1080 OF 2020

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16518/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF

KERALA DATED 12.8.2020

APPELLANT/PETITIONER :

THASNEEM S.P

AGED 25 YEARS,

D/O. SATHAR M.K.,

MALIKULANGARA HOUSE,

EDAKKARA P.O., THRISSUR-680518.

BY ADVS.

SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS

SMT.E.U.DHANYA

SHRI.ANOOP V.R.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :

1 STATE OF KERALA

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

2 COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,

HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGNS, SANTHI NAGAR,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.MANU FOR RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

14.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A. No.1080/20 2

'CR'

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14

th

day of August, 2020

Manikumar, CJ

Instant writ appeal is filed challenging the judgment in W.P.(C).

No.16518 of 2020 dated 12.08.2020, by which, the writ court directed the

2

nd

respondent - Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, to consider,

take up and pass orders on the request dated 10.08.2020 (Exhibit-P8),

submitted by the writ petitioner/appellant, in accordance with law, at the

earliest. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition are as follows:

I)To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or

direction, directing the 2

nd

respondent viz., Commissioner for

Entrance Examinations, to accept Exhibit-P7 certificate dated

10.08.2020 submitted by the petitioner through Exhibit P8 email, or

direct the 2

nd

respondent to permit her to upload Exhibit P7 certificate

in the official website, and thereby enable her to avail the benefit of

reservation seats towards Muslim quota, for allotment and admission

to three year LL.B Course.

II)To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or

direction, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for

reservation seats towards Muslim quota, for allotment and admission

to three year LL.B. Course.

2. Facts leading to the appeal are that, appellant/writ petitioner has

applied for a three year LL.B Course, 2020. She scored 254 marks and

obtained Rank No.325. She applied as a candidate belonging to SEBC, and

eligible for reservation to Muslim quota. Commissioner for Entrance

W.A. No.1080/20 3

Examinations, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.2, is having two

websites with very similar names, i.e, www.cee-kerala.org and www.cee-

kerala.gov.in. On 17.07.2020, Exhibit-P3 notice was published in the website

www.cee-kerala.org, requiring the candidates to cure the defects in the

online application, on or before 16.07.2020, i.e, the date before publication

of the results. The appellant was unable to cure the defect noted in her

application, i.e., Non Creamy Layer Certificate was not uploaded, as the last

date was over on the date of publication in the said website.

3. Appellant has further stated that she has obtained Exhibit-P7

certificate dated 10.08.2020 from the Village Officer, Punnayur, showing that

she belongs to Muslim community and does not belong to the category of

"Creamy Layer". The delay in getting the certificate was due to COVID-19

pandemic and her neighbouring areas were closed as containment zones.

4. Appellant has contended that since the website does not permit to

upload the certificate, she has submitted the certificate along with Exhibit-P8

application through email, and requested permission to upload the same.

But, the said request was not heeded to by the 2

nd

respondent.

5. Appellant has further stated that she is having better rank to get

admission to Government Law colleges towards Muslim Reservation Quota

for SEBC and that, her family cannot afford the fees of private Self Financing

Law Colleges.

W.A. No.1080/20 4

6. Appellant has further stated that publication of the first phase of

allotment is scheduled on 14.08.2020. Therefore, there is no hindrance or

impediment in accepting Exhibit-P7 Community-cum-Non Creamy Layer

Certificate from her, or permit her to upload the certificate in the website.

7. Appellant has further contended that the original certificate has to

be produced before the college authorities, at the time of admission, and

therefore, it is equitable to accept the certificate issued by the 2

nd

respondent

during the period of COVID-19 pandemic. It is also stated that the 2

nd

respondent has permitted candidates to upload the nativity certificate for

availing reservation till 12.08.2020. Hence, W.P.(C) No.16518/2020 was

filed for the reliefs stated above. However, without considering the reliefs

sought for, writ petition was disposed of directing the 2

nd

respondent to take

up and consider the request of the appellant at the earliest. Aggrieved by the

said judgment, instant writ appeal is filed on the following grounds:

A) Appellant has applied for three year LL.B Course by showing

that she is eligible for reservation provided towards Muslim quota.

The delay in curing the defect by her is not intentional and beyond

her control. It is pertinent to note that, for curing the defect

regarding non uploading of nativity certificate, as per Clause 6 of

the Prospectus, for availing reservation is permitted to 12.08.2020.

Therefore, considering as a special circumstance, this Court shall

direct the 2

nd

respondent to accept Exhibit-P7 certificate submitted

as per Exhibit-P8 email and provide to the appellant, the

reservation quota for Muslims. However, the learned Single

W.A. No.1080/20 5

Judge has considered the issue and found that the last date was

already over and, therefore, directed to consider the request of the

appellant without allowing the prayer. It is formally disclosed that

the office of the 2

nd

respondent has informed the appellant that her

request is rejected.

B) Appellant has further contended that no prejudice would be

caused to anyone, since the allotment is not yet started. Therefore,

it is just and equitable to accept Exhibit-P7 certificate by the 2

nd

respondent or permit the appellant to upload the certificate to the

official website of the 2

nd

respondent. In Chairman NRI Service

and Educational trust v. Kerala University [2014 (3) KLT 212],

this court has held that certificate can be accepted even at a later

stage.

C) The appellant belongs to SEBC - Muslim and applied as eligible

for reservation. There is no dispute in this fact. In Ram Kumar

Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board and

another [2016 KHC 6164], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, if

there is failure to submit OBC certificate before the last date, the

candidature of such candidates could not be rejected simply on

account of late submission of caste certificate. This position was

adopted by this Court in Union of India and others v. Abdul

Rasheed [2016 (5) KHC 129]. A Hon'ble Full Bench of Jammu and

Kashmir High Court in Competent Authority, Entrance

Examinations J & K and Another v. Mahesh Kumar Jia Lal

Raina and Another [AIR 2016 J&K 90] and a Hon'ble Division

Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court in Princy Meshram v. State of

Chhattisgarh and Another [AIR 2018 NOC 640], have

considered the issue with respect to admission to MBBS Course

and held that caste certificate can be considered after due date for

production of the same. Even though there is a delay in submitting

W.A. No.1080/20 6

the Community-cum-Non Creamy Layer Certificate by the

appellant, the same can be accepted by the 2

nd

respondent,

especially when the physical certificate has to be produced before

the college authorities at the time of admission, after completion of

allotment process.

D)Appellant has further contended that she got rank No.325 in

the entrance examination. Therefore, she will get admission to

Government Law Colleges, if she is permitted to avail reservation

towards Muslim quota. The denial of admission to her by not

granting eligible reservation, amounts to violation of Articles 14,

19, 21 and 41A of the Constitution of India.

8. On this day, when the matter came up for admission, based on the

instructions received from the respondents, prospectus and supporting

documents, Mr. V. Manu, learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted

that on 28.01.2020, a press notification was issued by the Commissioner for

Entrance Examinations, notifying the schedule for 3 year LLB/Integrated 5

year LLB Entrance Examinations, 2020. In the said press release, it was

specifically put to notice that those, who claim reservation benefits, must

avail in advance, relevant certificates, including non Creamy Layer

Certificate, and upload the same, as and when applications are invited.

9. On 4.3.2020, a notification was issued requesting those claiming

reservation benefits for 3 year LLB/5 year LLB Courses -2020 to avail in

advance, certificates required for claiming such benefits (Non Creamy

W.A. No.1080/20 7

Layer Certificate also mentioned). On 7.3.2020, notification was issued,

inviting applications for the entrance examination to 3 year LLB Course

2020-2023.

10. Learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that

appellant has submitted her application for admission to three year LLB

Course on 17.03.2020. A further notification was issued on 18.03.2020,

extending the last date for submission of online application upto

22.03.2020, 2 p.m. Subsequently, another notification was issued on

6.5.2020, informing the candidates that they could view their profile details in

their webpage. The candidates were also intimated that they can click the

memos available in their home page and view whether there are any defects

in their applications. Time was provided till 31.05.2020, 5 p.m., for

rectification of any defects in the applications, including uploading of relevant

certificates.

11. Learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that on

6.5.2020, an online memo was also issued in the webpage of the appellant,

for uploading Non Creamy Layer Certificate. However, she did not avail of

the aforementioned opportunities to submit her Non Creamy Layer

Certificate. He further submitted that on 18.05.2020, another notification

was issued, providing a chance to apply afresh for those, who could not

apply for the 3 year LLB entrance examination in time from 18.05.2020 to

W.A. No.1080/20 8

20.05.2020, 5 p.m. Thereafter, on 7.7.2020, a press release was issued,

whereby the candidates were given one more opportunity to rectify the

defects, by providing time till 16.07.2020.

12. Learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that on

3.8.2020, exam results were published and the same was brought to the

notice of the public, by a notification dated 3.8.2020. On 8.8.2020, online

options were invited. Even Non Creamy Layer Certificates issued online

were accepted. He submitted that as per the procedure followed, the

appellant need not even go to the Village Office to get the certificate. She

could have applied online and could have uploaded the certificate through

online. But, she obtained a certificate dated 10.08.2020, after the publication

of the results.

13. Learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that on

16.08.2020, category lists have been published, whereby students in various

categories have been arranged rank wise, in the general rank list. The

scheduled time for options was extended upto 13.08.2020, 3 p.m. He

submitted that the proposed date of first allotment is 14.08.2020, i.e. today.

He further submitted that as early as on 28.01.2020, when notification was

issued fixing entrance examination for the 3 year and 5 year Integrated LLB

Courses, it was indicated that those students, included in the reservation

categories and those who want reservation benefits, must collect the

W.A. No.1080/20 9

certificates, such as caste certificate (SC/ST category only) non-Creamy

Layer Certificate (for the children of SEBC/OEC/interfaith marriage parents),

income certificate (those category other than SC/ST/OEC and general

category), nativity certificate (only those candidates whose school and birth

certificates do not show place of birth), from the revenue authorities, well in

advance, and must provide the same along with the online application, as

directed.

14. Orders of lockdown were issued at the end of March, 2020. Time

for submission of applications was extended and so also, time for

rectification of defects in the applications was extended. Though, right from

28.01.2020, the students were categorically informed to get the certificates

in support of their claims against reservation, and even though time was

extended on four occasions, appellant has failed to upload the certificate. It

is also his contention that even in the Prospectus issued for admission of

students for the 3 year LLB Course, there is a clear mention about the

enclosures to be made. As on today, about 377 Muslim candidates have

already been arranged as per order of merits.

15. On the sequence of events, learned Senior Government Pleader

submitted that if the appellant has to be accommodated now in Muslim

category, there will be interpolation in the rank list of Muslim category and

any interpolation, at this juncture, would have an adverse impact on the

W.A. No.1080/20 10

candidates, who have uploaded their certificates in time.

16. For the above said reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

18. Press release issued by the 2

nd

respondent dated 28.01.2020 is

extracted hereunder:

“No. CEE/71/2020/3LLB-2020/TA2

Government of Kerala

Office of the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations

House Board Building, Santhi Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.

PRESS RELEASE

Details of Entrance Examinations for admission to integrated 5 year

LLB Courses/3 years LLB Course - 2020 have been published

The online Entrance Examinations for admission to integrated

5 year LLB Courses/3 year or the year 2020-21 shall be conducted

as per the schedule below:

Date of Examinations

Course Date

Three year LLB 25.04.2020

(Saturday)

Integrated Five year LLB 26.04.2020

(Sunday)

Those who intend to join the Government Law Colleges and

Private Self Financing Colleges in Kerala for 3 year LLB

Courses/integrated 5 year LLB Courses must attend the Entrance

Examinations conducted by the Commissioner for Entrance

Examinations and qualify for the same. Those students included in

the reservation categories and those who want reservation benefits

must collect in advance caste certificate (SC/ST category only) non-

Creamy Layer Certificate (for the children of SCBC/OEC/inter faith

marriage parents), income certificate (those category other than

W.A. No.1080/20 11

SC/ST/OEC and general category), nativity certificate (only those

candidates whose school and birth certificates do not show place of

birth) from revenue authorities, keep those with them and must

provide the same along with online application as directed.

Helpline No.0471 2525300

Thiruvananthapuram Sd/-

28.01.2020 Commissioner for Entrance Examinations”

19. Prospectus for admission to three year LLB Course, Kerala 2020-

2021 has been approved on 3.3.2020. Reservation is provided to many

categories. As per the Prospectus, an important note is given that,-

(a) Documents or Certificates furnished after the submission of the

application will not be entertained under any circumstances;

(b) No opportunity will be given to incorporate any details after the

submission of the application.

20. There is also a warning to the effect that,- “applications with

defective or incomplete certificates will be rejected. Belated applications will

not be accepted. Documents or certificates furnished after the last date

fixed for submission of online applications will not be considered on any

account. No candidate will be permitted to incorporate any additional details

in the application form or to submit any additional documents after the

submission of the online application”.

21. Notification dated 04.03.2020 issued by the 2

nd

respondent

regarding obtaining in advance, certificates for reservation benefits is

extracted hereunder:

W.A. No.1080/20 12

22. Notification dated 7.3.2020 inviting applications for entrance

examinations to 3 year LLB Course 2020-2021 reads thus:

W.A. No.1080/20 13

W.A. No.1080/20 14

W.A. No.1080/20 15

W.A. No.1080/20 16

23. Press release dated 18.03.2020 issued by the 2

nd

respondent,

extending the date for submission of online application reads thus:

W.A. No.1080/20 17

24. Notification dated 6.5.2020 issued by the 2

nd

respondent regarding

publishing of provisional details of candidates reads thus:

W.A. No.1080/20 18

25. Notification dated 18.05.2020 issued by the 2

nd

respondent inviting

fresh applications for admission to 3 year LLB/5 year LLB Courses is

extracted hereunder:

W.A. No.1080/20 19

26. Press release dated 7.7.2020 issued by the 2

nd

respondent, for

curing the defects in the applications submitted to 3 year LLB/5 year LLB

Courses-2020 is extracted hereunder:

W.A. No.1080/20 20

27. Press release dated 7.7.2020 (Ext.P3), issued by the 2

nd

respondent, submitted by the appellant along with the writ petition is

extracted hereunder:

W.A. No.1080/20 21

28. Request submitted by the appellant for rectifying defect in the

application for 3 year LLB Course, to the Commissioner for Entrance

Examinations through e-mail dated 9.8.2020 (Ext.P4), reads thus:

“The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations

Fifth Floor, Housing Board Buildings

Santhi Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram-695001.

…...................

09

th

August, 2020

Dear Sir,

Sub:- RECTIFICATION OF DEFECT OF APPLICATION FOR THE 3

YEAR LLB. COURSE.

My name is Thasneem S.P., an applicant for the 3 year LLB entrance

examination, bearing the application no.3102100 and roll no.57984, for

the academic year 2020-2021. Due to the shortage of internet facility I

had depended upon the Akshaya centre in my locality.

The press release from The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations

regarding the rectification of defects in application had appeared on

www.cee-kerala.org only on 17

th

July,2020, and the last date for any

such rectification, was on 16

th

July 2020. I tried to login as soon as I

found the notification, but due to the expiry of the cut off period, I was

unable to login and rectify the defects of non creamy layer certificate in

my application.

I have attached a screen shot of the www.cee-kerala.org, dated

09/08/2020, to bring into your kind notice that the result of entrance

examination of 5 year LLB, 2020 which was published on 7

th

Aug., is not

updated in www.cee-kerala.org as on 09/08/2020. The screen shot is

only to draw your notice to the delay in updating the website www.cee-

kerala.org.

I have been awarded a rank of 325 in the 3 year entrance examination of

2020, and I am afraid that, due to the defect in my application I might

lose my chance for a reservation that I am entitled to.

The fact being brought to your notice is very genuine, and there was no

negligence from my part, and I therefore humbly request your kind

perusal and consideration for an approval for updating a creamy layer

certificate in my application.

Yours faithfully,

Thasneem S.P.”

W.A. No.1080/20 22

29. Notification dated 8.8.2020 (Ext-P6) issued by the 2

nd

respondent,

inviting online options for allotment of 3 year LLB Course 2020-21, is

extracted hereunder:

W.A. No.1080/20 23

W.A. No.1080/20 24

30. Certificate dated 10.08.2020, issued to the petitioner by the Village

Officer, Punnayur (Ext.P7), showing that she belongs to Muslim community

is extracted hereunder:

“Ref. File No.425/20/PNR Office: PUNNAYUR

Date: 10.08.2020

NON-CREAMYLAYER CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that THASNEEM S.P., D/O. SATHAR M.K.,

MALIKKULANGARA HOUSE, EDAKKARA P.O., PUNNAYUR

Village, CHAVAKAD Taluk, Thrissur District, Kerala State belongs to

the ISLAM religion MUSLIM Community, which is designated as

Backward Class in the State of Kerala.

W.A. No.1080/20 25

This is also certify that above Sri. THASNEEM S.P., does not

belong to the category of 'Creamy Layer' in the light of the guidelines

issued in G.O.(P). 81/2009/SC/ST/DD dated 26/09/2009 and the

schedule prescribed there under to identify the 'Creamy Layer'

among the designated 'Other Backward Classes' in the State of

Kerala.

Sd/-

VILLAGE OFFICE,

Official seal PUNNAYUR-............”

31. The E-mail application sent by the appellant dated 10.08.2020 to

the 2

nd

respondent through email is extracted hereunder:

“From

THASNEEM S P

Roll No.57984

Application No.3102100

To

The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations

Fifth Floor, Housing Board Buildings

Santhi Nager, Thiruvananthapuram.

SUB: Request for uploading non-creamy layer certificates

Dear Sir,

This is with reference to my previous communication dated 09

August 2020, explaining the technical problem which I had

encountered while rectifying the defect in my application on time.

I would like to attach the non-creamy layer certificate for your kind

perusal and request for your kind permission to upload the same.

Yours faithfully,

Thasneem S.P

10-08-2020

Thrissur.

…...............Forward message..................

From: Thasneem <thasneemsp748@gmail.com>

Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020, 3.03 pm.”

W.A. No.1080/20 26

32. As rightly contended by Mr. V. Manu, learned Senior Government

Pleader, the appellant had all the time from 28.01.2020 to apply for the Non

Creamy Layer Certificate. Despite sufficient time granted for obtaining and

uploading the required certificate, the appellant has not done so. Only in

August, 2020, she has made an application for the certificate. Contention

that the appellant could have applied for the said certificate and that there is

no need to go to the Village Office concerned is not disputed.

33. Having regard to the sequence of events, COVID-19 pandemic

cannot be cited as a reason for the delay in even applying and securing the

certificate. Appellant has obtained the certificate only on 10.08.2020, after

the publication of the results. As on today, the merit list of various categories

of students has been drawn and published on 11.08.2020. About 377

Muslim candidates, who have submitted the candidatures, have been

arranged in the order of merit. Appellant has not submitted the required

document in time.

34. As rightly contended by learned Senior Government Pleader, any

interpolation, at this juncture, will have an adverse impact on the candidates,

who have uploaded their certificates in time. For the above said reasons,

writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.

35. Yet another fact noticed from the statement of facts is that the

appellant has laid the foundation for her case, that on 7.7.2020, Exhibit-P3

W.A. No.1080/20 27

notice was issued in the website requiring the candidates to cure the

defects in the online applications, on or before 16.07.2020 and that on

8.8.2020, online options were invited. For reasons best known to the

appellant, all the notifications issued from 28.01.2020 till 18.05.2020 have

been conveniently omitted to be disclosed in the statement of facts, thus

giving an impression to the court that only from 7.7.2020, time was given to

rectify the defect.

36. There is no full disclosure of facts, rather we may say so that

there is suppression. Appellant has not approached this Court with clean

hands. In the said circumstances, equity cannot be extended. Few decisions

on the above aspect are considered as under:

(i) In Arunima Baruah v. Union of India [(2007) 6 SCC 120], the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 11 to 14, held as follows:

"11. The court's jurisdiction to determine the lis between the

parties, therefore, may be viewed from the human rights concept

of access to justice. The same, however, would not mean that the

court will have no jurisdiction to deny equitable relief when the

complainant does not approach the court with a pair of clean

hands; but to what extent such relief should be denied is the

question.

12. It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to

exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of

material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression whereof

would dis-entitle the appellant to obtain a discretionary relief,

W.A. No.1080/20 28

would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination

of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the

same was material for grant or denial of the relief. If the fact

suppressed is not material for determination of the lis between the

parties, the court may not refuse to exercise its discretionary

jurisdiction. It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary

jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a

pair of dirty hands. But even if the said dirt is removed and the

hands become clean, whether the relief would still be denied is the

question.

14. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4

th

Edn., Vol. 16, pp.

874-76, the law is stated in the following terms:

“1303. He who seeks equity must do equity. “In granting

relief peculiar to its own jurisdiction a court of equity acts

upon the rule that he who seeks equity must do equity.

By this it is not meant that the court can impose arbitrary

conditions upon a plaintiff simply because he stands in

that position on the record. The rule means that a man

who comes to seek the aid of a court of equity to enforce

a claim must be prepared to submit in such proceedings

to any directions which the known principles of a court of

equity may make it proper to give; he must do justice as

to the matters in respect of which the assistance of

equity is asked. In a court of law it is otherwise: when

the plaintiff is found to be entitled to judgment, the law

must take its course; no terms can be imposed.

W.A. No.1080/20 29

* * * 1305. He who comes into equity must come with

clean hands. “A court of equity refuses relief to a plaintiff

whose conduct in regard to the subject- matter of the

litigation has been improper. This was formerly

expressed by the maxim “he who has committed iniquity

shall not have equity”, and relief was refused where a

transaction was based on the plaintiff's fraud or

misrepresentation, or where the plaintiff sought to

enforce a security improperly obtained, or where he

claimed a remedy for a breach of trust which he had

himself procured and whereby he had obtained money.

Later it was said that the plaintiff in equity must come

with perfect propriety of conduct, or with clean hands. In

application of the principle a person will not be allowed

to assert his title to property which he has dealt with so

as to defeat his creditors or evade tax, for he may not

maintain an action by setting up his own fraudulent

design.

The maxim does not, however, mean that equity strikes

at depravity in a general way; the cleanliness required is

to be judged in relation to the relief sought, and the

conduct complained of must have an immediate and

necessary relation to the equity sued for; it must be

depravity in a legal as well as in a moral sense. Thus,

fraud on the part of a minor deprives him of his right to

equitable relief notwithstanding his disability. Where the

transaction is itself unlawful it is not necessary to have

recourse to this principle. In equity, just as at law, no

W.A. No.1080/20 30

suit lies in general in respect of an illegal transaction, but

this is on the ground of its illegality, not by reason of the

plaintiff's demerits.”

(ii) In Prestige Lights Ltd., v. State Bank of India [(2007) 8 SCC

449], at Paragraphs 33, 34 and 35, it has been held as follows:

“33. It is thus clear that though the appellant- Company had

approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it

had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is

exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a

Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a

party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before

the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of

material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have

been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to

entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into the

merits of the matter.

34. The object underlying the above principle has been

succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in R v. Kensington Income Tax

Commissioners, [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJ KB 257 : 116 LT 136], in

the following words: "(I)t has been for many years the rule of the

Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain,

that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an

ex parte statement he should made a full and fair disclosure of all

the material facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can

help the Court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing

about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the

facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation

W.A. No.1080/20 31

is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly

stated to it, the Court will set aside, any action which it has taken

on the faith of the imperfect statement". (emphasis supplied)

35. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a

matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a

Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is

invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full

facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of

misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without

adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public

interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of

Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in

disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts

are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very

functioning of the writ courts would become impossible."

(iii) In Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and

another v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2008) 1 SCC 560], at paragraphs

16 and 17, the Hon'ble Apex Court, has held as follows:

"16. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching

a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not

only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not

take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again

which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate

General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries [(1980) 3 SCC

311], this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of

writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt.

W.A. No.1080/20 32

17. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this

appeal which is dismissed accordingly with costs. Counsel's fee

quantified at Rs.50,000."

(iv) In Amar Singh v. Union of India & Others reported in (2011) 7

SCC 69, on the aspect of a litigant approaching the court, with unclean

hands, at, paragraphs 53 to 57, and at, paragraph 59, considered

several judgments. Finally, at paragraph No.60, extracted a paragraph

from Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and others, [(2010) 2 SCC 114]:

"53. Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants

who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated

proceedings without full disclosure of facts. Courts held that

such litigants have come with "unclean hands" and are not

entitled to be heard on the merits of their case.

54. In Dalglish v. Jarvie [2 Mac. & G. 231,238], the Court, speaking

through Lord Langdale and Rolfe B., laid down:

"It is the duty of a party asking for an injunction to bring

under the notice of the Court all facts material to the

determination of his right to that injunction; and it is no

excuse for him to say that he was not aware of the

importance of any fact which he has omitted to bring

forward."

55. In Castelli v. Cook [1849 (7) Hare, 89, 94], Vice Chancellor

Wigram, formulated the same principles as follows:

"A plaintiff applying ex parte comes under a contract with

the Court that he will state the whole case fully and fairly to

the Court. If he fails to do that, and the Court finds, when

the other party applies to dissolve the injunction, that any

material fact has been suppressed or not properly brought

forward, the plaintiff is told that the Court will not decide on

the merits, and that, as has broken faith with the Court, the

injunction must go."

W.A. No.1080/20 33

56. In the case of Republic of Peru v. Dreyfus Brothers & Company

[55 L.T. 802,803], Justice Kay reminded us of the same position by

holding thus:

"...If there is an important misstatement, speaking for

myself, I have never hesitated, and never shall hesitate

until the rule is altered, to discharge the order at once, so

as to impress upon all persons who are suitors in this

Court the importance of dealing in good faith with the

Court when ex parte applications are made."

57. In one of the most celebrated cases upholding this principle, in

the Court of Appeal in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner

[1917 (1) K.B. 486] Lord Justice Scrutton formulated as under:

"…........and it has been for many years the rule of the

Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to

maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to

obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a

full and fair disclosure of all the material facts- facts, now

law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it - the

court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing

about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and

fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court

enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts

have been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set

aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the

imperfect statement."

59. The aforesaid requirement of coming to Court with clean

hands has been repeatedly reiterated by this Court in a large

number of cases. Some of which may be noted, they are: Hari

Narain v. Badri Das - AIR 1963 SC 1558, Welcome Hotel and

others v. State of A.P. and others - (1983) 4 SCC 575, G.

Narayanaswamy Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and another v.

Government of Karnatka and another - (1991) 3 SCC 261, S.P.

Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs.

W.A. No.1080/20 34

and others (1994) 1 SCC 1, A.V. Papayya Sastry and others v.

Government of A.P. and others - (2007) 4 SCC 221, Prestige Lights

Limited v. SBI - (2007) 8 SCC 449, Sunil Poddar and others v.

Union Bank of India - (2008) 2 SCC 326, K.D.Sharma v. SAIL and

others - (2008) 12 SCC 481, G. Jayashree and others v.

Bhagwandas S. Patel and others - (2009) 3 SCC 141, Dalip Singh

v. State of U.P. and others - (2010) 2 SCC 114.

60. In the last noted case of Dalip Singh (supra), this Court

has given this concept a new dimension which has a far reaching

effect. We, therefore, repeat those principles here again:

"For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic

values of life i.e. "satya"(truth) and "ahimsa (non-violence),

Mahavir, Gautam Budha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the

people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth

constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system

which was in vogue in the pre- independence era and the

people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts

irrespective of the consequences. However, post-

Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value

system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos

and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that

those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of

falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the

court proceedings.

In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped

up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect

for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and

unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet

the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the

courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is

now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute

the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of

justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief,

interim or final."

(v) In Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. & Others [(2013) 2 SCC

398], at paragraphs 32 to 36, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

W.A. No.1080/20 35

"32. With the passage of time, it has been realised that

people used to feel proud to tell the truth in the Courts,

irrespective of the consequences but that practice no longer

proves true, in all cases. The Court does not sit simply as an

umpire in a contest between two parties and declare at the

end of the combat as to who has won and who has lost but it

has a legal duty of its own, independent of parties, to take

active role in the proceedings and reach at the truth, which is

the foundation of administration of justice. Therefore, the

truth should become the ideal to inspire the courts to pursue.

This can be achieved by statutorily mandating the Courts to

become active seekers of truth. To enable the courts to ward

off unjustified interference in their working, those who

indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and

motivated falsehood, must be appropriately dealt with. The

parties must state forthwith sufficient factual details to the

extent that it reduces the ability to put forward false and

exaggerated claims and a litigant must approach the Court

with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of the Court to

ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal

process must be effectively curbed and the Court must ensure

that there is no wrongful, unauthorised or unjust gain to

anyone as a result of abuse of the process of the Court. One

way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic or punitive

costs.

33. The party not approaching the Court with clean hands

would be liable to be non-suited and such party, who has also

succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making

patently false statements, cannot claim relief, especially

W.A. No.1080/20 36

under Article 136 of the Constitution. While approaching the

court, a litigant must state correct facts and come with clean

hands. Where such statement of facts is based on some

information, the source of such information must also be

disclosed. Totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of

the process of the court and such a litigant is not required to

be dealt with lightly, as a petition containing misleading and

inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose

amounts to abuse of the process of the court. A litigant is

bound to make “full and true disclosure of facts”. (Refer:

Tilokchand H.B. Motichand & Ors. v. Munshi & Anr. [(1969) 1

SCC 110]; A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula

Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam & Anr.

[(2012) 6 SCC 430]; Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma

[(1995) SCC 1 421]; Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India &

Ors. [(2011) 6 SCC 145]; State of Madhya Pradesh v.

Narmada Bachao Andolan & Anr. [(2011) 7 SCC 639];

Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India & Anr. [(2011) 3 SCC 287)].

34. The person seeking equity must do equity. It is not just

the clean hands, but also clean mind, clean heart and clean

objective that are the equi-fundamentals of judicious

litigation. The legal maxim jure naturae aequum est

neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri

locupletiorem, which means that it is a law of nature that one

should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another, is the

percept for Courts. Wide jurisdiction of the court should not

become a source of abuse of the process of law by the

disgruntled litigant. Careful exercise is also necessary to

ensure that the litigation is genuine, not motivated by

W.A. No.1080/20 37

extraneous considerations and imposes an obligation upon

the litigant to disclose the true facts and approach the court

with clean hands.

35. No litigant can play “hide and seek” with the courts or

adopt “pick and choose”. True facts ought to be disclosed as

the Court knows law, but not facts. One, who does not come

with candid facts and clean breast cannot hold a writ of the

court with soiled hands. Suppression or concealment of

material facts is impermissible to a litigant or even as a

technique of advocacy. In such cases, the Court is duty bound

to discharge rule nisi and such applicant is required to be

dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of

the court. {K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors.

[(2008) 12 SCC 481]}.

36. Another settled canon of administration of justice is that

no litigant should be permitted to misuse the judicial process

by filing frivolous petitions. No litigant has a right to unlimited

drought upon 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 used as a licence to file misconceived

and frivolous petitions. [Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr.)V. K.

Parasaran, (1996) 5 SCC 530)]."

37. It is worthwhile to consider, in similar circumstances, i.e., delay in

submission of a required certificate, one of us (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shaji P.

Chaly), while sitting in writ jurisdiction, has considered a similar issue in

W.P.(C) No.20991 of 2019. After considering the rival submissions, writ

W.A. No.1080/20 38

court by judgment dated 02.08.2020, dismissed the writ petition, wherein at

paras 3 and 4, ordered thus:

“3. In my considered opinion, the admission to the M.B.B.S

course is conducted in a time bound manner following the

stipulations contained in the KEAM-prospectus 2019. There are

certain directions of the Apex Court also in respect of the

completion of the admission process. It is an admitted fact that,

petitioner could not upload the certificate and the petitioner is

putting the responsibility on the Tahsildar, who was failed to

issue an EWS certificate. However, in my considered opinion if

there was lethargy on the part of the Tahsildar, petitioner was

duty bound to seek appropriate relief against the Tahsildar, in

order to consider and dispose of the application submitted.

Therefore on account of the delay on the part of the Tahsildar,

no manner of negligence or latches on the part of

the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations can be attributed by

the petitioner.

4. Taking into account the submissions made by the

respective counsel across the Bar and perusing the pleadings

and document on record, I am of the considered opinion that,

there was no violation on the part of the respondents in

considering the application submitted by the petitioner. It was

only on account of the delay on the part of the petitioner to

upload the EWS certificate, the application could not be

considered. Therefore it cannot be said that, petitioner has made

out any case against the respondents justifying interference of

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

W.A. No.1080/20 39

38. The above said judgment is quoted only for the purpose of

similarity and not sitting on appeal. Though the appellant has relied on few

decisions, seeking reversal of the impugned judgment, on the facts and

circumstances of this case, no interference is called for.

In the light of the above discussion and decisions, there is no error in

the judgment impugned, warranting interference in appeal. Writ appeal is

dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-

S. Manikumar,

Chief Justice

Sd/-

Shaji P. Chaly,

Judge

sou./Krj.