Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
S.B. NORONAH (SMT)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT10/05/1993
BENCH:
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1.By this petition the tenant challenges validity of
Section 3(c) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It is claimed
that similar petitions are pending in this Court.
2.Normally there would have been no difficulty in
entertaining this petition but we find that the petitioner
had approached this Court earlier by way of petition under
Article 136 and his petition was directed to be tagged with
other petitions and interim order, too, was granted. Later
on at the instance of the landlord the leave was revoked and
the petition was dismissed.
3.To overcome this hurdle the learned counsel has placed
reliance on Hari Singh v. State of Haryana’ and A.R. Antulay
v. R.S. Nayak2. He urged that a citizen of India has a
constitutional right to be treated alike. According to him
this Court committed a mistake in revoking leave and
depriving the petitioner to avail of his constitutional
remedy. Therefore, this Court is constitutionally obliged
to grant her protection.
4.Existence of constitutional right cannot be disputed.
But one of the well-established principles of invoking
extraordinary jurisdiction is to approach the Court with
clean hands and honest conscience. One cannot abuse the
process of Court and yet claim its protection. Since the
Bench revoking the leave, found that the petitioner had
obtained interim order by suppression of facts, it would not
be proper on our part to grant any indulgence to such a
litigant. We, therefore, refuse to entertain this petition
and dismiss it in limine.
375