G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) IT is a century old dictum that a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his claim. The Supreme Court and this Court applied this dictum in the following cases for declining to hear the petitioner/appellant on the merits of his case :- (1) Har Narain v. Badri Dass, AIR 1963 S.C. 1558; (2) Welcome Hotel and others v. State of A.P. and others, AIR 1983 S.C. 1015; (3) G. Narayanaswamy Reddy and anr. v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1991 S.C. 1726; (4) S.P. Chengalvarara Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, 1994(1) RCR(Civil) 253 (SC) : JT 1993(6) SC 331; (5) R.G. Sinde v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1994 S.C. 1673; (6) Chint Ram Chand and ors. v. State of Punjab and others, 1996(1) R.R.R. 625 : AIR 1996 S.C. 1406; (7) Bhupinderpal Kaur v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, (1968) 70 P.L.R. 169; (8) Chiranji Lal and Ors. v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and Ors., (1978) 80 S.C. 582; (9) Harbhajan Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1995(3) RCR(Civil) 28 (P&H) : 1994 P.L.J. 287; (10) Jai Bhagwan Jain v. H.S.E.B. Panchkula, C.W.P. No. 15448 of 1993 decided on 21.9.1994; (11) Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and anr., 1994(4) SCT 75 (P&H) : 1994(5) S.L.R. 73; (12) M/s. Kaka Ram Pars Ram and ors. v. State of Punjab and ors., 1996(1) P.L.R. 691; (13) C.W.P. No. 11686 of 1996 - Shri Kant and ors. v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 20.1.1997; (14) C.W.P. No. 4381 of 1998 - M/s Arihant Super Rice Land and ors. v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 6.8.1998; (15) C.W.P. No. 18304 of 1998 - Smt. Krishna Gupta v. State of Punjab and ors., decided on 1.12.1998; (16) C.W.P. No. 2585 of 1999 - Santa Singh v. Union of India and others, decided on 24.2.1999; (17) C.W.P. No. 11538 of 1999 - Meenu Seth v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 2.3.2000; (18) C.W.P. No. 3520 of 2000 - Rajinder Parshad and others v. Union of India and others, decided on 31.5.2000. (19) L.P.A. No. 349 of 1992 - Cement Corporation of India, Charkhi Dadri v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hissar and others, decided on 6.9.2001.
(2.) IN Jai Bhagwan v. Haryana State Electricity Board (supra), a Division Bench of this Court had observed as under :- "Satya (truth) and Ahimsa (non-violence) are the two basic values of life, which have been cherished for centuries in this land of Mahavir and Mahatma Gandhi. People from different parts of the world come here to learn these fundamental principles of life. However, post-independence era and particularly the last two decades have witnessed sharp decline in these two basic values of life. Materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and quest for personal gain is so immense that people do not have any regard for the truth. Proceedings in the Courts, which were at one time considered to be pious and the people considered it their duty to tell the truth in the Court now stand vitiated by the attempts made by the parties to pollute the ends of justice." We have prefaced disposal of this petition by above noted observation and reference to the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court because after perusing the record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are convinced that the petitioner deserves to be non-suited only on the ground that he has not approached the Court with clean hands.
(3.) THE petitioner was elected as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Dalipgarh in March, 2000 by defeating Jeeta Singh and others. Soon after the election, the petitioner presided over the meeting of Gram Panchayat, Dalipgarh held on 2.5.2002 in which the following resolution was passed :- "It has been decided by Panchayat Dalipgarh that a wine shop be opened in the village because illicit liquor is being sold in the village and there is apprehension of danger to the people. The wine shops are at far away place and the people have to go at a distance for its purchase. Therefore, to stop inconvenience to the people, it is necessary to open a wine shop in Village Dalipgarh." ;