A. Tajuthin vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

The petitioner before this Court had filed this writ petition seeking protection from the District Magistrate, District Tehri Garhwal and Senior Superintendent of Police, District Tehri Garhwal. His case is that on the instigation of rival businessmen, the officers of the local police station are putting hindrance on the petitioner and are not allowing him to do his business in New Tehri town. Admittedly, the petitioner is a resident of District Nagapattinam in Tamil Nadu, who has come to New Tehri to do the business of sale of electrical appliances and furniture.

We were initially concerned, as such hindrance cannot be put in the functioning of the petitioner, as this would amount to an invasion of his fundamental right given to him under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Nevertheless, for abundant precaution before granting any relief to the petitioner, we sought a report from the learned Deputy Advocate General of the State.

In this regard, a photocopy has been given to us by the learned State Counsel. Mr. Chandan Singh Chauhan, Station House Officer, New Tehri, who is also present in person before this Court has apprised this Court that although no formal FIR has been lodged against the petitioner but on an inquiry they have found that a criminal case has been filed against the petitioner in the State of Assam under Sections 188, 406 and 420 of IPC and under Section 4/5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 as well as in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

We had directed the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sandeep Kothari to get instruction from his client in this regard. Petitioner is also present in person in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given a statement before this Court that the petitioner has informed him that although such FIRs have been lodged against the petitioner, though he does not admit having committed these crimes as alleged. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sandeep Kothari submits that these facts were not in his knowledge at the time of filing of the petition.

In view of this fact, all we can say is that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. He should have disclosed all these facts to this Court before seeking any relief from the Court. We have nothing further to say in this regard, but since the writ petition over and above is an equitable remedy, we see no reason presently for interfering in the matter.

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.