Summary
The Madras High Court had set aside Standing Order No. 1/2022 by which the Governing Board of the Auroville Foundation reconstituted the Auroville Town Development Council with its own nominees in place of nominees of the Residents' Assembly. The Supreme Court allowed the Foundation's appeal, holding that the writ petitioner had suppressed the dismissal of her earlier petition seeking the same relief, and that under Sections 11(3), 16 and 17(e) of the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988 read with Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules the Governing Board alone constitutes committees and determines their composition, the Residents' Assembly having no right to be represented on them; the petition was an abuse of process and costs of Rs.50,000 were imposed.
Issues
- Whether a writ petition seeking substantially the same relief as an earlier petition that was dismissed, without disclosing that dismissal, should have been entertained by the High Court.
- Whether the Governing Board of the Auroville Foundation has power under the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988 and the Auroville Foundation Rules, 1997 to constitute and reconstitute the Auroville Town Development Council by Standing Order with members of its own choice.
- Whether the Residents' Assembly, or an individual resident of Auroville, has any statutory right to be part of a committee or council constituted by the Governing Board for implementing the approved Master Plan.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaA party invoking the High Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction must come with clean hands and disclose all material facts; suppression of material facts is an abuse of process and the petition must be dismissed on that ground alone without going into the merits (S.J.S. Business Enterprises; Haryana Roadways v. Jai Bhagwan; Prestige Lights). The respondent's failure to disclose the dismissal of her earlier writ petition seeking the same relief should have led the High Court to dismiss the second petition. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Section 11(3), Auroville Foundation Act, 1988The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the Foundation vest in the Governing Board, which may exercise all powers and discharge all functions of the Foundation; relying on this provision the Board had, by a Regulation notified on 05.03.2011, resolved to issue Standing Orders on matters covered by Section 11(3) and other matters it considered necessary, which empowered it to issue the impugned Standing Order. (¶¶ 4, 5, 12, 14, 16, 17)
- Section 16, Auroville Foundation Act, 1988The Governing Board may appoint such committees as are necessary for the efficient discharge of its duties and functions; this, with Rule 5(1) and 5(2) of the 1997 Rules under which the Board alone determines the composition and functions of committees it constitutes, authorised the constitution and reconstitution of the Auroville Town Development Council by Standing Order. Neither the Act nor the Rules confer any right on the Residents' Assembly or an individual resident to be part of such a committee. (¶¶ 4, 12, 15, 17)
- Sections 17(e) and 19, Auroville Foundation Act, 1988Under Section 17(e) the Board prepares the Master Plan in consultation with the Residents' Assembly and ensures development as planned; the Assembly's role under Section 19 in formulating the Master Plan was exhausted once the Plan was approved by the Central Government in 2001 and notified in 2010. Thereafter the Assembly's functions are confined to advising the Board on activities relating to residents and making the recommendations specified in Section 19, which supplement but do not supplant the Board's powers. (¶¶ 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17)
- Rule 5(1) and 5(2), Auroville Foundation Rules, 1997Rule 5(1)(c) recognises committees constituted by the Governing Board under Section 16(1), and Rule 5(2) provides that the Governing Board shall determine the composition and functions of every committee constituted by it; the Court read these as vesting in the Board alone the choice of members of the Town Development Council. (¶¶ 4, 15, 17)
Held
- The doctrine of clean hands and non-suppression of material facts applies with full force to every judicial proceeding; a writ petitioner who conceals the dismissal of an earlier petition seeking substantially the same relief abuses the process of court and the petition must be dismissed on that ground alone. The High Court erred in entertaining the respondent's second petition without dealing with the Foundation's specific preliminary objection of suppression. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- The Auroville Foundation is a statutory body whose general superintendence, direction and management vest in the Governing Board alone under Section 11(3); the Board may constitute committees under Section 16 and, under Rule 5(2) of the 1997 Rules, alone determines their composition and functions. The Auroville Town Development Council, constituted and reconstituted by Standing Orders of 2011, 2019 and 2022 to implement the approved Master Plan, was validly constituted. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- The Residents' Assembly's part in formulating the Master Plan under Sections 17(e) and 19 ended when the Plan was approved by the Central Government in 2001 and notified in 2010; its remaining functions are advisory and recommendatory only. Neither the Assembly nor an individual resident has any legal or statutory right to be part of any committee or council constituted by the Governing Board, so replacing the Assembly's nominees on the Council with the Board's nominees was not inconsistent with the Act. (¶¶ 11, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- Standing Order No. 01/2022 dated 01.06.2022 suffers from no legal infirmity; the High Court thoroughly misdirected itself in misinterpreting the Act and setting it aside. The writ petition was one of a series of ill-motivated petitions by a small group of residents obstructing implementation of the Master Plan, warranting costs. (¶¶ 6, 7, 17, 18, 19)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment setting aside the Notification dated 01.06.2022 containing Standing Order No. 01/2022 set aside; respondent to deposit costs of Rs.50,000 with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.