Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Dr Vijay Kumar Kathuria v. State Of Haryana And Others

Supreme Court Of India

Apr 29, 1983

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

A dispute arose regarding whether the provisional admissions of two petitioners to the Medical College, Rohtak continued until October 1, 1982, or had been cancelled earlier. To resolve this, the court framed an issue and referred it to the District Judge, Rohtak, directing submission of a report within a specified time. The enquiry was later transferred to the District Judge, Hissar, who, by letter dated February 4, 1983, submitted his report to the court.

The District Judge, Hissar conducted a full-fledged enquiry, receiving both oral and documentary evidence from the parties. He found against the petitioners, concluding that, to their knowledge, their provisional admissions had been cancelled well before October 1, 1982. The court notes that on October 1, 1982, the petitioners falsely represented that they were still pursuing postgraduate studies at the Medical College, Rohtak, and obtained an order of status quo as of that date. The court observed that, but for this misrepresentation, it would not have issued the status quo order.

Based on the report and the court’s acceptance of its findings, the petitioners’ Special Leave Petitions (SLP Nos. 9009 of 1982 and 9010 of 1982) and their contempt application (CMP No. 27798 of 1982) were found liable to be dismissed. Before concluding, the court also recorded strong disapproval of the conduct of the two petitioners and their counsel, who later tendered an unqualified apology; the court directed each petitioner to pay Rs 2500 as costs to the respondents.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the petitioners’ provisional admissions to the Medical College, Rohtak continued until October 1, 1982, or had been cancelled prior to that date.
Whether the petitioners misrepresented material facts to obtain an order of status quo as of October 1, 1982.
In light of the District Judge’s findings, whether the Special Leave Petitions and the contempt application should be dismissed and costs imposed.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Scope of the enquiry: The court had specifically referred the factual dispute about the status of the petitioners’ provisional admissions as of October 1, 1982 to a District Judge for a fact-finding enquiry.
Conduct of the enquiry: The District Judge, Hissar conducted a comprehensive enquiry, taking both oral and documentary evidence from the parties.
Findings accepted: The District Judge concluded that the petitioners knew their provisional admissions had been cancelled well before October 1, 1982. After reviewing the report and all materials, and considering the petitioners’ counsel’s attempts to challenge the findings and observations, the court found the report “very thorough, balanced and satisfactory” and expressly accepted its findings.
Effect of misrepresentation: The court recorded that the petitioners falsely represented to the court that they were continuing as postgraduate students on October 1, 1982 and thereby obtained a status quo order as of that date. The court observed that, but for this misrepresentation, it would not have granted that order. On this basis, the court held that the petitioners, by their conduct, had disentitled themselves to any relief or assistance from the court.
Consequential orders: Given the accepted findings, the court determined that the petitioners’ SLPs (Nos. 9009 and 9010 of 1982) and their contempt application (CMP No. 27798 of 1982) “deserve to be dismissed.”
Censure and mitigation: The court strongly deprecated the conduct of the two petitioners and their counsel, noting the District Judge’s report that they indulged in falsehoods and reckless allegations against college authorities. Although the court considered referring the matter to the Medical Council and the Bar Council for appropriate action, it refrained due to an unqualified apology tendered by the petitioners’ counsel on his own and his clients’ behalf. The court nonetheless imposed costs of Rs 2500 on each petitioner, payable to the respondents.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSAL: The court dismissed Special Leave Petitions Nos. 9009 of 1982 and 9010 of 1982 and CMP No. 27798 of 1982.

COSTS ORDER: The court directed each petitioner to pay Rs 2500 as costs to the respondents.

Implications: The immediate effect is that the petitioners receive no relief; the prior status quo order was acknowledged as having been procured by misrepresentation, and the petitions and application are dismissed with costs. The opinion does not articulate broader legal implications or establish new precedent beyond the case-specific finding that parties who misrepresent facts to the court may be denied relief.

Show all summary ...

1. In the above matters since a dispute was raised as to whether the provisional admissions granted to the two petitioners had continued till October 1, 1982 or were cancelled long prior to that date, an issue was sent to the District Judge, Rohtak for enquiry and a finding thereon. The District Judge, Rohtak was required to submit his report within a specified time. Later for some reasons, which it is unnecessary to mention, the enquiry was transferred to the District Judge, Hissar who has now submitted his report to this court through his letter dated February 4, 1983. After holding a fullfledged enquiry during the course of which oral as well as documentary evidence was produced by the parties in support of their respective versions, the District Judge has recorded a finding against the petitioners to the effect that to their knowledge their provisional admissions had been cancelled by the concerned authorities much before the crucial date namely, October 1, 1982. In other words, it is clear that on October 1, 1982 the petitioners made a false representation to this court that they were continuing their studies as post-graduate students of Medical College, Rohtak on October 1, 1982, and obtained an order of status quo as of that date to be maintained from this court. But for the misrepresentation this court would never have passed the said order. By reason of such conduct they have disentitled themselves from getting any relief or assistance from this court and the special leave petitions are liable to be dismissed.

2. Counsel for the petitioners attempted to challenge the finding recorded by the District Judge as also some of his observations made against the petitioners but after going through the report and other material and after considering all the contentions urged against it we are satisfied that it is a very thorough, balanced and satisfactory report and we accept the finding recorded therein. In view of this CMP No. 27798 of 1982 taken out by the petitioners for contempt as also the Special Leave Petitions Nos. 9009 of 1982 and 9010 of 1982 deserve to be dismissed.

3. Before parting with the case, however, we cannot help observing that the conduct or behaviour of the two petitioners as well as their counsel (Dr A.K Kapoor who happens to be a medico-legal consultant practising in courts) is most reprehensible and deserves to be deprecated. The District Judge's report in that behalf is eloquent and most revealing as it points out how the two petitioners and their counsel (who also gave evidence in support of the petitioners' case before the District Judge) have indulged in telling lies and making reckless allegations of fabrication and manipulation of records against the college authorities and how in fact the boot is on their leg. It is a sad commentary on the scruples of these three young gentlemen who are on the threshold of their careers. In fact, at one stage we were inclined to refer the District Judge's report both to the Medical Council as well as the Bar Council for appropriate action but we refrained from doing so as the petitioners' counsel both on behalf of his clients as well as on his own behalf tendered unqualified apology and sought mercy from the court. We, however, part with the case with a heavy heart expressing our strong disapproval of their conduct and behaviour but direct that the petitioners will pay a sum of Rs 2500 each as by way of costs to the respondents. The two SLPs and CMP are thus dismissed with the aforesaid direction in regard to payment of costs.