Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court (Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata) dismissed a review petition filed by an individual claiming entitlement to a rehabilitation tenement under a slum redevelopment scheme, holding that the petition was based on falsehood, suppression, and abuse of process.
The Court imposed ₹5,00,000 as costs, payable to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund, and directed initiation of contempt proceedings against the petitioner for misleading the court and fabricating evidence.
The Bench also ordered the BMC and SRA to conduct a probe into the functioning of a school allegedly run by the petitioner in unsafe slum premises, emphasizing the systemic failure in verifying claims under slum schemes.
Facts
The petitioner, a medical practitioner and chairperson of a charitable trust running a school in a slum area, filed a review petition seeking reconsideration of the High Court’s earlier order dated 8 February 2024.
In her writ petition, she had sought two primary reliefs —
- Direction to the developer and SRA to allot her a rehabilitation tenement for her residential structure under the slum redevelopment scheme; and
- Payment of rent arrears for temporary accommodation since 2009.
She claimed that despite being declared eligible in Annexure II and repeated requests, no rehabilitation flat was allotted, and that the developer falsely stated she had been provided transit accommodation in Room G3, Building A/1/4.
The petitioner alleged that this accommodation was actually allotted to a trust-run school and that she was being deprived of her rightful residential allotment. She contended that both she and the school were distinct entities, and the court had wrongly dismissed her earlier writ petition without verifying the facts.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner had suppressed material facts in her writ and review petitions.
- Whether the High Court could entertain a review petition introducing new facts or evidence.
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief after having made false representations before the court.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that she was eligible for both residential and commercial premises under the scheme — one for her residence and another for her medical clinic. She claimed she never sought relief concerning the commercial premises (which had already been allotted) and only pursued her residential entitlement.
Her counsel submitted that Respondent No. 2 (developer) made a false statement asserting she had been allotted Room G3, which was in reality allotted to a school managed by a trust. The petitioner sought that the order dated 8 February 2024 be reviewed on the ground that the developer’s misrepresentation led to an erroneous dismissal.
It was contended that the trust was a separate legal entity, and the rehabilitation scheme mandated that schools run by charitable institutions must be provided equivalent accommodation under Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR 2034. Thus, conflating her claim with that of the trust was unjustified.
She further relied upon SRA’s earlier orders confirming that the trust had been allotted premises for a school and urged that her personal residential claim was distinct and should have been considered separately.
Respondent’s Arguments
Counsel for the developer argued that the petitioner was already in possession of multiple premises, including Rooms G3 and G6, as well as temporary accommodation in Building D1. He submitted that she had deliberately concealed the fact that she continued to occupy more than 2,200 sq. ft. of area in the slum — comprising residential, commercial, and school premises.
The SRA also confirmed that both the petitioner and the trust had been found eligible under the scheme and that the petitioner had failed to vacate one of the allotted rooms (G6) even after being provided alternate accommodation.
The respondents contended that the review petition was not maintainable, as there was no error apparent on the face of the record, and the petitioner was merely attempting to introduce new evidence. They sought dismissal with exemplary costs.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the scope of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, noting that a review cannot be an avenue for rehearing or re-arguing matters already adjudicated. A party cannot use a review petition to introduce new material or fresh grounds.
The Bench cited K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2008) 12 SCC 481, wherein the Supreme Court held that litigants invoking Article 226 must approach the court with clean hands, disclose all material facts, and refrain from misleading the court. The judgment emphasized that suppression or manipulation of facts vitiates the entire proceeding.
The High Court also invoked the equitable maxim “he who seeks equity must do equity”, observing that writ jurisdiction is discretionary, and any party abusing the process must be denied relief.
Precedent Analysis
- K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2008) 12 SCC 481 —
The Supreme Court held that suppression of material facts disentitles a litigant from invoking writ jurisdiction. The High Court relied on this principle to reject the petitioner’s plea and emphasized that suppression amounts to abuse of process. - State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu (1994) 2 SCC 481 (referred indirectly) —
Reaffirmed that misrepresentation before courts warrants dismissal with costs and potential contempt action.
The Bombay High Court followed these precedents to reinforce that falsehood and concealment strike at the foundation of justice.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Kamal Khata observed that the petitioner deliberately withheld material facts, including that she:
- Possessed three structures used for residence, clinic, and school;
- Held control over both the individual and trust-run premises; and
- Already received commercial allotment (Shop No. 46) as early as 2006.
The Court found her plea of being a “senior citizen living with her parents” to be patently false, holding that she was an active professional using multiple premises for personal and commercial benefit.
The judgment noted:
“Suppression or concealment of material facts is not advocacy. It is jugglery, manipulation, and misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable jurisdiction.”
The Bench further found that the evidence submitted by the petitioner — such as receipts and occupation proofs — were fabricated and bogus, issued in the name of “unnamed individuals” for implausible purposes like “poultry songs.”
The Court expressed strong disapproval of the petitioner’s conduct, terming it an abuse of judicial process and a betrayal of the court’s trust.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the review petition, finding it devoid of merit and grounded in falsehood. The petitioner was ordered to:
- Pay ₹5,00,000 as costs to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within two weeks;
- Face recovery proceedings through the Collector if payment was not made; and
- Respond to a show cause notice for contempt of court, returnable on 13 November 2025.
The Bench also directed the BMC and SRA to conduct an inquiry into how the petitioner’s trust was permitted to run a school for 150 students in unsafe slum premises without necessary permissions or fire NOC.
Implications
This ruling is a landmark reaffirmation of the principle that equitable relief is reserved only for honest litigants. It underscores that:
- Courts will not tolerate suppression, deceit, or manipulation in writ or review proceedings.
- Misuse of slum rehabilitation benefits attracts exemplary costs and potential contempt.
- Authorities like the SRA and BMC must tighten verification mechanisms to curb fraudulent claims in rehabilitation projects.
The judgment sends a strong message that judicial integrity cannot be compromised by misrepresentation, and that public resources must be protected from abuse.
