METCO AUTOTECH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief(s) :

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that Plot No. 33, Industrial Area, Banmore, Distt. Morena was leased out to respondent no. 4 and due to non-fulfillment of the conditions of lease, the lease granted in favor of the respondent no. 4 stood cancelled. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 challenged the order of cancellation by filing W.P. No. 5514/2009, which was later on withdrawn with liberty to prefer an appeal before the Chairman of M.P.S.I.D.C. The appeal was preferred by respondent no. 4 through the stranger who projected himself to be the partner of respondent no. 4. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 31-8-2015, which was challenged in a revision, which too was dismissed and both the orders have been challenged by the respondent no. 4 by filing W.P. No. 2431 of 2016, which is pending and an interim order of maintaining status quo has been passed. It is further pleaded that the respondent no. 4 has executed an agreement to sale in favor of respondent no. 5. It is the claim of the petitioner that it has also put up an application for allotment of land or to auction the said piece of plot by inviting applications and by following the due process of law. But the respondents no. 2 and 3 have joined hands with the respondents no. 4 and 5 and are trying to transfer the lease in favor of the respondent no. 5 on the basis of the agreement to sell. It was also apprehended that the respondents no. 2 and 3 would transfer the land in favour of respondents no.4 and 5 and thereafter, the respondent no. 4 would withdraw the W.P. No. 2431 of 2016. It is further pleaded that the respondent no. 4 has no power to transfer the lease to respondent no. 5 by executing an agreement to sell. It is also pleaded that the petitioner tried to obtain the copy of the agreement to sell under the Right to Information Act , but the same was rejected on the ground that the information sought by the petitioner relates to the third party and it has denied the access to documents to the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act was also dismissed. It was pleaded that the respondent no. 4 has no authority to execute the agreement to sale plot no. 33, Industrial Area, Banmore, Distt. Morena. It was further pleaded, that the petitioner is also one of the contender but the respondents by adopting the incorrect means are trying to frustrate the legitimate claim of the petitioner.

(3.) The respondents no. 2 and 3 have filed their return and raised perliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of this petition. It is pleaded that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that her husband had filed a W.P. No. 5706/2014. The said writ petition was also filed on the similar set of facts. On the preliminary objection raised by the answering respondents, the said writ petition was withdrawn by him with liberty to file civil suit. It is further pleaded that if a litigant comes to a Court and invokes a Writ Jurisdiction, then he must come with clean hands. The answering respondents have also mentioned in para 2 of their return as under :