B.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed for seeking a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner for compensation as petitioner's husband died by electrocution.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case, as stated by the petitioner, are that petitioner's husband died of electrocution on 13.5.2000 and an application/representation under Section 3/7 of the U.P. Public Liability Insurance Act is pending before the said respondent, which has not yet been decided. Hence the direction should be issued to the said respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner. During the course of the argument Shri S.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner was asked as to why the different facts have been given in the body of the petition than that of the F.I.R. lodged in respect of the same incident by the son of the petitioner. In the F.I.R. what has been stated is that the victim was ploughing the field by Tractor, and when he reached beneath the live electric wire, which had been on a very low level, the tractor-hood came in contact with the live wire and he died on the spot, while in the petition, the facts have been narrated in a different manner, i.e., when the deceased was going in a Tractor the live electric wire had broken and fell down upon him causing instantaneous death of the husband of the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner replied that the Court cannot ask such an irrelevant question; petitioner had come here only for seeking a direction to decide the representation and not to decide the case itself; and when he was asked why the Court itself cannot decide the case, the learned Counsel answered that the Court doubts the bona fide of the petitioner, thus it has no right to entertain the petition, the case should be released so that it may be heard by some other Bench. Even at that stage, in order to ascertain the facts we wanted to issue notice to the respondents and then pass an order or decide the case ourselves for the reasons in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 585 of 2004, Shail v. Manoj Kumar and Ors. decided on 29th March, 2004, the Hon'ble Supreme Court placing reliance upon its judgment in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. AIR2003 SC 3044 , 2003 (5 )ALD36 (SC ), 2003 (5 )ALT19 (SC ), 2003 (4 )CTC48 , (2004 )1 GLR320 , [2003 (4 )JCR174 (SC )], 2003 (3 )KLT490 (SC ), (2003 )3 MLJ60 (SC ), RLW2003 (4 )SC 523 , 2003 (6 )SCALE133 , (2003 )6 SCC675 held that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution, can also pass an order which any Court, Tribunal or Authority subordinate to it could pass, and such a power can be exercised even while the High Court is entertaining the Contempt Petition. As the provision of Section 165 of the Evidence Act 1872 empowers the Court to ask questions relevant, irrelevant, related or unrelated to the case to the party to ascertain the true facts, we fail to understand why the said principle cannot be applied in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that a lawyer or a party is not permitted to tell the Court that the question put to him is irrelevant. Asking a lawyer to explain the difference in facts mentioned in the pleadings and in the documents filed by the petitioner to substantiate his case, cannot be held to be irrelevant or unwarranted. Even otherwise, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has to ensure that writ petitioners always approach the Court with clean hands and must state true and correct facts in the petition. Misstatement of fact in the petition itself is a ground to refuse to exercise power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution as writ is a discretionary relief and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
(3.) Writ jurisdiction is a discretionary. It is not issued merely because if it is lawful to do so. Once a factual stand is taken, it cannot be changed on any legal proposition whatsoever nor it is permissible for the Court to examine the correctness of the findings of fact unless it is found to be perverse being based on no evidence or contrary to evidence, as the writ Court exercises its supervisory jurisdiction and not of appellate forum. The purpose of the writ Court is not only to protect a person from being subjected for violation of law but also to advance justice and not to thwart it. The Constitution does not place any fetter on the power of the extraordinary jurisdiction but leaves it to the discretion of the Court. However, being the power discretionary, the Court has to balance competing interest, keeping in mind that interest of justice and public interest can coalesce in certain circumstances. Petition can be entertained only after being fully satisfied about the factual statements and not in a casual and cavalier manner. (Vide Champalal Binani v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal and Ors. AIR1970 SC 645 , [1970 ]76 ITR692 (SC ), (1971 )3 SCC20 ; Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Anr. v. State of Maharastra and Ors. 1996 IX AD(SC )68 , AIR1997 SC 1236 , JT1996 (10 )SC 452 , 1996 (8 )SCALE417 , (1997 )1 SCC134 , [1996 ]Supp8 SCR787 ; Chimajirao Kanhojirao Shrike and Anr. v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2001 ACJ8 , AIR2000 SC 2532 , [2000 ]102 CompCas9 (SC ), JT2000 (8 )SC 354 , (2000 )126 PLR490 , 2000 (5 )SCALE345 , (2000 )6 SCC622 , [2000 ]Supp1 SCR696 , 2000 (2 )UJ1219 (SC ); Shama Prashant Raje v. Ganpatrao and Ors. AIR2000 SC 3094 , 2000 (II )OLR(SC )684 , 2000 (6 )SCALE531 , (2000 )7 SCC522 , [2000 ]Supp3 SCR448 , 2001 (2 )UJ1241 (SC ); LIC of India v. Asha Goel AIR 2001 SC 549; Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal 2002 ACJ17 , AIR2002 SC 33 , 2002 (1 )ALD18 (SC ), [2002 (92 )FLR175 ], [2002 (1 )JCR316 (SC )], JT2001 (10 )SC 309 , 2002 LablC106 , (2002 )I LLJ465 SC , (2002 )1 PLR289 , 2001 (7 )SCALE616 , (2002 )1 SCC100 , 2002 (2 )SCT106 (SC ), 2002 (1 )UJ334 (SC ), (2002 )1 UPLBEC280 ; S.D.S. Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v. Jay Container Services Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. AIR2003 SC 2186 , 2003 (4 )SCALE604 , (2003 )9 SCC439 , 2003 (2 )UJ1148 (SC ); and Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. AIR2003 SC 2889 , JT2003 (6 )SC 20 , RLW2003 (4 )SC 563 , 2003 (5 )SCALE361 , (2003 )6 SCC545 , 2004 (1 )SLJ401 (SC ), 2003 (2 )UJ1325 (SC ).;