http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: ALL INDIA STATE BANK OFFICERS FEDERATIONTHROUGH ITS PRESIDEN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/04/1990

BENCH: RANGNATHAN, S. BENCH: RANGNATHAN, S. VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)

CITATION:  1990 SCR  (2) 493        1990 SCC  Supl.  336  JT 1990 (2)   243        1990 SCALE  (1)40

ACT:     Constitution    of   India   1950:   Article    32--Writ Petition--Reckless      statements      and       deliberate mis-statements--Making of--Court records strong disapproval.     Practice  and  Procedure:  Writ  Petitions--Simultaneous filing of in various High Courts--A practice which has to be discouraged.

HEADNOTE:     The  All India State Bank Officers’ Federation  filed  a Writ Petition in this Court on the 24th April, 1989  seeking to impugn a new promotion policy initiated by the State Bank of India. The petition was supported by an affidavit of  the President  of the Federation affirming the contents  of  the petition  to be true to his personal knowledge, and  submit- ting in paragraph 9(mm) of the petition that the petitioners were  approaching this Court in great haste as the Bank  was moving  with  great  speed to implement  its  new  promotion policy and was likely to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee, and declare the results. In para 4 it was submit- ted  that  the petitioners had not filed any  other  similar petition either in this Court or any other High Court.     When  the writ petition came up for admission  before  a Bench of this Court on April 26, 1989, counsel for the State Bank  of India was present and accepted notice on behalf  of the Bank.     The  Writ Petition was contested by the Bank which  sub- mitted in its counter affidavit that the statement in para 4 of  the petition in support of the writ petition was  false, and  pointed  out  that the Federation  through  its  Deputy General  Secretary  had filed a Writ Petition  in  the  High Court  of Andhra Pradesh along with an  application  seeking stay of the promotion policy, and that the High Court admit- ted  the  Writ Petition on April 13, 1989 but  rejected  the application  for interim stay, and further pointed out  that another  petition had been filed by the State Bank of  India Officers’  Association  (Karnataka) in  the  Karnataka  High Court. A second objection as regards the maintainability  of the 494 petition was raised in para 3 that since the promotions  had already  been made they could not be disturbed and  that  no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

steps  were  taken to implead those officers, who  would  be directly affected as a result of the prayer made in the writ petition.     To  the  aforesaid  objections raised by  the  Bank  the petitioner  filed a rejoinder supported by an  affidavit  of the  President of the Federation, submitting that the  depo- nent  did not have any knowledge of the writ petition  filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and that as soon as  it came  to his knowledge it was withdrawn. and that the  peti- tioners did not know the names of all the 58 candidates  who had been promoted favoured.     When the Writ Petition was taken up for further  hearing on  April  5,  1990, counsel for the Bank  objected  to  the maintainability  of  the  writ petition on  the  grounds  of suppression  of material facts and abuse of the  process  of court.  The Court directed the petitioner to file  a  better affidavit,  and  the petitioner Federation  filed  a  better affidavit  explaining the correct position and tendering  an unqualified  apology for the mis-statements in  the  earlier affidavit,  but still reiterated that they came to  know  of the  writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court only  on April  23,  1989 and that, at the time  of  the  preliminary hearing,  it was brought to the notice of the Court  by  the Respondent’s counsel.     The  respondent pointed out that the statements made  in the  rejoinder filed by the petitioners that they  were  not aware  of the names of the promoted officers till  November, 1989  was a total falsehood because; (i) the  writ  petition filed  in the Karnataka High Court made all of them  parties to  the  writ petition, and (ii) the names of  the  promoted officers  were  listed in the fortnightly  bulletin  of  the State Bank Officers’ Association dated 1st May, 1989  carry- ing a message of congratulations to all of them.     Disposing  of the preliminary objections and  adjourning the writ petition for further hearing on merits, the Court,     HELD:  1.  Apart from mis-statements in  the  affidavits filed before this Court the petitioner federation has clear- ly resorted to tactics which can only be described as  abuse of  the  process of court. The simultaneous filing  of  writ petitions  in various High Courts on the same  issue  though purportedly  on  behalf  of different  associations  of  the Officers of the Bank, is a practice which has to be discour- aged. [500H; 501A] 495     2.  An attempt was made to obtain a stay in  the  Andhra Pradesh  High  Court and when that attempt failed  the  writ petition  here was filed. In this the petitioners were  able to obtain only an order that any "promotions made during the pendency of the petition would be subject to the decision in the  writ petition. But having obtained this order on  April 26, 1989, it is curious and inexplicable that an  affiliated association  should  have made an application on  April  27, 1989  in the Karnataka High Court praying for a stay of  the promotions. These are only tactics that will be indulged  in by a chronic and compulsive litigant and not by a Federation like the petitioner. [501C-D]     3. One expects that officers fight their battles  fairly and  squarely  and not stoop low to gain what  can  only  be temporary victories by keeping away material facts from  the court. [501E]     4. It is common knowledge that, of late, statements  are being  made in petitions and affidavits  recklessly  without proper verifications not to speak of dishonest and  deliber- ate  misstatements. Strong and emphatic disapproval  of  the conduct  of the petitioners in this case is recorded in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

hope  that this will be a lesson to the present  petitioners as  well  as to other litigants and that atleast  in  future people will act more truthfully and with a greater sense  of responsibility. [501F-G]     5.  The  Court  does not wish to  penalise  the  various officers who may suffer as a consequences of the new policy, which they wish to challenge, and decline them an opportuni- ty to put forward their grievances before the Court, for the mis-statements  or wrong steps taken by the officers of  the Federation  in their over-anxiety to get quick  interim  re- lief. [502B-C]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.  507 and 1260 of 1989. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).      M.K. Ramamurthy, Rajinder Sachhar, Dr. Francis  Julion, Ms.  Aruna Mathur, A. Mariarputham, Ms. S. Dikshit,  S.  Va- sudevan and Pradeep Misra for the Petitioners. For the Respondents--Nemo. The following Order of the Court was delivered by 496     S. RANGANATHAN, J. This order will dispose of a prelimi- nary  objection  raised on behalf of  the  respondents  that these  writ petitions should be dismissed because the  peti- tioners  have  suppressed certain material facts  from  this Court  and have also tried to abuse the process of court  in the manner hereinafter appearing.     Writ Petition No. 507 of 1989 has been filed by the  All India  State Bank Officers’ Federation  (hereinafter  called ’the  Federation’)  through its President. It was  filed  in this Court on 21st April, 89 and was supported by an affida- vit  of Umed Singh, President of the  Federation,  affirming the  contents  of the petition to be true  to  his  personal knowledge.  By  this writ petition the Federation  seeks  to impugn a new promotion policy decided upon by the State Bank of India (hereinafter called ’the Bank’). In paragraph 9(mm) of  the petition it is stated that the petitioners  are  ap- proaching  this Court in great haste as the Bank  is  moving with  great speed and is likely to  constitute  Departmental Promotion  Committees and declare the results of the  inter- views  in implementation of the new promotion policy  within the next two or three days. In the affidavit of Umed  Singh, referred  to earlier, it has been stated in para 4 that  the petitioners  have not filed any other similar writ  petition in this Honourable Court or any other High Court.     In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Bank, it  is stated that the statement in paragraph 4 of the petition  in support  of  the writ petition is false. It is  pointed  out that the Federation through its Deputy General Secretary had filed  Writ Petition No. 5286 of 1989 in the High  Court  of Andhra  Pradesh at Hyderabad along with an  application  No. 6969  of  1989,  seeking stay of the  promotion  policy.  On 13.4.89  the  Andhra Pradesh High Court  admitted  the  writ petition but the learned judge rejected the application  for interim  stay observing "that he was prima  facie  satisfied that the selection is going on according to a fair procedure and  that there is no need to stay any of the interviews  or the  appointment".  It is further pointed out  that  another petition  has  also been filed by the State  Bank  of  India Officers’  Association  (Karnataka)  having  its  office  at Bangalore  in the Karnataka High Court, being Writ  Petition No.  7848  of  1989. It is, therefore,  submitted  that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

petitioners  have  suppressed from this Court  the  material fact that a writ petition has already been filed by them  in the  Andhra Pradesh High Court and that an  application  for stay had been made and rejected by the said court. A  second objection to the 497 maintainability.  of  the petition raised on behalf  of  the Bank in paragraph 3 of its counter affidavit was that  since promotions had already been made they could not be disturbed "as the promoted officers have not been made parties". It is common ground that 58 officers had been promoted w.e.f. 24th April, 89 but no steps were taken to implead these officers, who  would  be directly affected as a result of  the  prayer made in the writ petition.     To these objections, a rejoinder was filed on behalf  of the  petitioners,  supported again by an affidavit  of  Umed Singh  on  the  23rd of October, 1989.  The  two  objections raised by the Bank were sought to be refuted in the  follow- ing manner: "1. That the contents of para 1 are denied and it is reiter- ated  that  the writ petition is maintainable  as  there  is clear  violation  of fundamental rights  guaranteed  to  the petitioners.  The writ petition filed in the Andhra  Pradesh High  Court has since been withdrawn as per the  undertaking given to the Supreme Court during arguments on 24.4.89.  The deponent had no knowledge of the writ petition filed  before the  High Court of Andhra Pradesh, hence as soon as it  came to his knowledge the same has been withdrawn. Even otherwise the deponent understands that in the said writ petition  the stay  of interviews was prayed and the same was declined  on representation  made  by the respondent bank. It  is  indeed regrettable  that  even before Hon’ble High Court  the  bank made  incorrect statements. A perusal of the order  of  High Court would show the same. Regarding the question of  making such employees who have been promoted as a party respondent, it  is  submitted that firstly it is  the  promotion  policy which  had been challenged being  arbitrary,  discriminatory and  framed in gross violation of the  prescribed  procedure and  provisions of law, secondly the petitioners even  today do  not  know the names of all such 58 candidates  who  have been promoted favoured."                           (emphasis added)     It  may be mentioned here that Writ Petition No. 507  of 1989  came up for admission before a Bench of this Court  on 26th April, 1989. Apparently, the counsel for the State Bank of  India was present and accepted notice on behalf  of  the bank. The Bench passed the following order: 498 "Issue  notice,  Mr. S.S. Sharma,  learned  counsel  accepts notice on behalf of the State Bank of India. Counter affida- vit  shall be filed within four weeks from today. Reply,  if any, shall be filed within two weeks thereafter, the  matter will  be placed for final disposal on 24.10.1989 subject  to overnight part-heard. The promotion if given in the meantime will  be subject to the decision in the writ  petition.  Mr. K.K.  Venugopal, learned counsel states that the writ  peti- tion  which  has been filed before the High  Court  will  be withdrawn."     The  Writ Petition came on for hearing before us on  5th April, 1990. Sri G. Ramaswamy, counsel for the Bank, put the above objections in the forefront as preliminary objections. After  hearing  him and the counsel for the  petitioner,  we directed the petitioner federation to file a better  affida- vit explaining the correct position. In compliance with  the direction  given by us, another affidavit has been filed  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

Sri Umed Singh. In this affidavit, again, although  purport- ing to "tender an unqualified apology" for the  misstatement in  the earlier affidavit, the deponent reiterated "that  he did  not  know on the date of swearing of the  affidavit  on 21.4.89  that  some other office bearer  of  the  petitioner federation  has  filed such a petition". He claims  to  have come  to  know  of it only on the 23rd April,  1989  from  a telephonic conversation with the Deputy Secretary and wishes to  take  credit for the fact that he at once  informed  his counsel about it who in turn brought it to the notice of the Court at the time of the preliminary hearing on 26th  April, 1989. The truth of these allegations is refuted on behalf of the Bank. It is submitted that the counsel for the petition- er did not, even at the time of hearing on 26.4.89, bring to the notice of this Court the fact that he had filed a  peti- tion in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. On the other hand, it is claimed, it was the counsel for the Bank who was  present and  who took notice on behalf of the Bank, that brought  to the  notice  of the Court that the  petitioner  had  already moved  the Andhra Pradesh High Court in regard to  the  same relief  and it was only thereafter that the counsel for  the petitioner made a statement that the petitioner would  with- drew  the petition filed in the Andhra Pradesh  High  Court. Even this, it is pointed out, they did not do immediately as stated  in Umed Singh’s affidavit for the said petition  was withdrawn only much later on 27th of July, 1989.     On  behalf of the Bank it is also pointed out  that  the statement  made in the rejoinder filed by Umed  Singh,  sup- ported by his affidavit, 499 that the addresses of the 58 promotees was not known to  the petitioner is again a total falsehood as is demonstrated  by two circumstances. In the first place, in the writ  petition filed in the Karnataka High Court, the petitioner there  has joined all the 58 officers as parties and an application was moved before the said High Court on 27th April, 89,  seeking stay  of promotion of the said respondents. That  apart,  on 1st May, 89, a fortnightly bulletin issued by the State Bank of  India  Officers’ Association (Mumbai circle),  which  is admitted  to  be one of the associations affiliated  to  the petitioner Federation, carries a message of  congratulations to  all the 58 officers, who had been promoted  w.e.f.  24th April, 89. The names of all the 58 officers so promoted  has been set out in this bulletin.     In  this  state of the record, learned counsel  for  the Bank strongly urges that we should dismiss the writ petition straightaway on the ground that the petitioner has not  come to Court with clean hands.     We  have heard learned counsel on both sides at  length. There is no doubt left in our minds that the petitioner  has not  only suppressed material facts in the petition but  has also  tried to abuse judicial process. The explanation  that the  President of the Federation when he filed the  writ  in this Court on 21st April, 89, was not aware that a  petition had  been filed in the Andhra Pradesh High  Court  (repeated for a second time in the affidavit of 5th April’ 90) is,  in our opinion, is totally unacceptable. Admittedly the federa- tion was considerably agitated by the new promotion  policy. The matter was considered to be very urgent and the  federa- tion was too keen to obtain a stay of implementation of  the policy which, it feared. the Bank might do any day. In  this situation,  not even the most gullible of persons  would  be credulous  enough to accept the explanation that the  Deputy General  Secretary  of the Federation had not  apprised  the President of their failure to obtain the stay order from the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

Andhra  Pradesh High Court. It is totally unbelievable  that between 13.4.89, when the interim application in the  Andhra Pradesh  High Court was rejected and 21.4.89 when  the  writ petition was filed, the President was not aware of what  had happened  in the High Court. It is deplorable that  such  an explanation  should  have been not only put forward  in  the original  rejoinder but should have been repeated  again  in the  latest affidavit. The petitioner had, in  our  opinion, deliberately  suppressed from the petition this crucial  and important  fact. As to the credit sought for having  brought this fact to the notice of the Court on 25.4.89. the circum- stances suggest that perhaps they would not have brought  it to the notice of the court at all had not counsel on  behalf of the Bank been present. to receive notice 500 when the matter was moved for admission on 26.4.89. whether, as asserted by the counsel for the petitioner, the petition- er  considered  it prudent, in view of the presence  of  the Bank’s counsel, to volunteer at the time of the said hearing the information that a petition had been filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and to offer an undertaking that it would be  withdrawn  or  whether, as alleged in  a  "statement  of facts"’  placed  before us by Sri S.S  Sharma,  the  learned counsel for the Bank who appeared at the hearing, even  this information had to be supplied to the Court by the Bank,  is a controversy into which we need not enter. We shall proceed on the assumption that the statement made by the counsel for the  petitioner is correct, but even that does  not  explain why  a reference to the writ petition in the High Court  was not  made  in the writ petition as it had to  be  made.  The statement  in the affidavit of Umed Singh that  no  petition had  been  filed in any High Court was clearly  and  plainly false.     It  is  equally  clear that the statement  made  in  the rejoinder  affidavit  that "till today (i.e.  23rd  October, 1989) the petitioner federation is not aware of the names of the  promoted  officers" is again  an  incorrect  statement. These officers had been impleaded in the interim application for  the  relief sought against them in the  Karnataka  High Court  as early as 27.4.89. That apart the federation  could not have been unaware of the contents of the bulletin issued by the Mumbai circle of the SBI Officer’s Association issued on  1.5.89.  There is no doubt that the petitioner  did  not deliberately implead the 58 promoted officers. Sri  Sachhar, for the petitioner, sought to contend that these 58 officers may  be  proper  parties but not necessary  parties  and  he referred  us to the judgments of this Court in  The  General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and Another  v. A.V.R.  Siddhantti  and Ors., [1974] 4 S.C.C. 335  and  Col. D.D. Joshi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1983] 2  S.C.C. 235.  We  are not here concerned with the  question  whether these officers were necessary or proper parties and, indeed, this  issue is no longer alive as, subsequently,  the  peti- tioner  itself has undertaken to implead these  58  officers and notices have been issued to them in both the writ  peti- tions. What we are concerned here with is the statement,  in the rejoinder affidavit that the Federation was not aware of the  names of the 58 officers till November 1989  which,  in the circumstances is a clear misstatement.     Apart from misstatements in the affidavits filed  before this  Court, the petitioner Federation has clearly  resorted to  tactics  which  can only be described as  abuse  of  the process of court. The simultane- 501 ous  filing of writ petitions in various High Courts on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

same issue though purportedly on behalf of different associ- ations of the Officers of the Bank, is a practice which  has to be discouraged. Sri Sachhar and Sri Ramamurthy wished  to pinpoint  the  necessity and importance of  petitions  being filed by different associations in order to discharge satis- factorily  their responsibilities towards  their  respective members. We are not quite able to appreciate such  necessity where there is no diversity but only a commonness of  inter- est.  All that they had to do was to join forces and  demon- strate  their unity by filing a petition in a Single  Court. It  seems the object here in filing different  petitions  in different Courts was a totally different and not very  laud- able one. Again an attempt was made to obtain a stay in  the Andhra  Pradesh High Court and when that attempt failed  the writ  petition here was filed. In this the petitioners  were able to obtain only an order that any promotions made during the  pendency of the petition would be subject to the  deci- sion  in the writ petition. But, having obtained this  order on 26.4.89, it is curious and inexplicable that an affiliat- ed association should have made an application on 27.4.89 in the  Karnataka High Court praying for a stay of  the  promo- tions. These are only tactics that it will be indulged in by a  chronic and compulsive litigant and not by  a  federation like the petitioner.     We  have set out the facts in this case at  some  length and passed a detailed order because we are deeply grieved to come  across  such conduct on the part  of  an  association, which claims to represent high placed officers of a  premier bank  of  this country. One expects such officers  to  fight their  battles fairly and squarely and not to stoop  low  to gain, what can only be, temporary victories by keeping  away material facts from the court. It is common knowledge  that, of late, statements are being made in petitions and  affida- vits recklessly and without proper verification not to speak of  dishonest and deliberate misstatements.  We,  therefore, take  this  opportunity to record our  strong  and  emphatic disapproval  of the conduct of the petitioners in this  case and hope that this will be a lesson to the present petition- er as well as to other litigants and that atleast in  future people will act more truthfully and with a greater sense  of responsibility.     The question that now remains to be considered is wheth- er  the petition is liable to be dismissed for this  conduct of  the President of the Federation. Sri  Rajendra  Sachhar, appearing  on behalf of the petitioners, sought to get  over the Bank’s objections by addressing certain technical  argu- ments.  He submitted that even if Writ Petition No. 507/  89 was liable to be dismissed for mis-statement and suppression there 502 would be no reason to dismiss C.W.P. No. 1260 of 1989  which has been filed by another association of the same  officers. He also sought to contend that, since it had been brought to the notice of this Court on 26.4.89 that a petition had been filed  in a High Court and that it was being withdrawn,  the order  passed  by this Court on 26.4.89 should be  taken  as having condoned any mis-statement or mis-conduct or  defects in  the writ petition. We are not inclined to  accept  these submissions.  However, it is not necessary to  discuss  this aspect  further  as we do not wish to penalise  the  various officers who may suffer as a consequence of the new  policy, which they wish to challenge, for the misstatements or wrong steps  taken by the Officers of the federation  perhaps,  in their  over-anxiety to get quick interim relief. We  do  not wish  to  decline them an opportunity to put  forward  their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

grievances  before the court by dismissing these writ  peti- tions  on the preliminary objections raised by the Bank.  In fact, we should like to place on record our appreciation  of the stand taken by Sri G. Ramaswamy, learned counsel for the Bank  in this respect. He fairly stated that, as he  is  ap- pearing  for a public sector undertaking, he is  quite  pre- pared to contest the writ petitions on their merits and that his preliminary objections were primarily intended to  bring to  our notice the conduct of the petitioners in this  case. We  are  glad he did it as this was a  matter  which  needed serious notice. We should like to record our dis-approval of the  way  in which the proceedings have  been  conducted  on behalf of the Federation.     However, as mentioned above, we overrule the preliminary objections and will proceed to dispose of the writ petitions on  their merits. The Writ Petitions are adjourned,  as  per separate order, to 17.7.90 for further hearing. N.V.K. 503