IMPORTANT JUDGMENT ON VAKALATNAMA

In one of its ongoing requests, the Bombay High Court has forced expenses of ₹10, 000 on three candidates after they were not able clarify a produced thumb impact on the Vakalatnama for their situation.The Court additionally guided its library to record a criminal objection in the issue.

It thus observed,

"It is trite that a person seeking equitable relief from the Court must approach the Court with clean hands. If the Court finds that such a person has not approached the Court with clean hands and has taken resort to means which are highly questionable, not only would he be dis-entitled to any relief from the Court but would also be liable to face such other action as is contempt in law, more particularly under the Indian Penal Code."

The order came out when the Court was hearing a writ plea filed by four petitioners seeking to quash an order by an Additional Collector (Encroachment/Eviction) and a High-Power Committee of the State Government

The Court noted that the petitioners, this year had sought to withdraw their plea.However, one of the respondents, through Learned Counsel pointed out that the fourth petitioner, Rakesh Thomas Jadhav, was not a resident of India and that he had not given instructions to file the present plea on his behalf.Then also, his name was incorporated in the list of Petitioners.To support this, a thumb impression stated to be his was embossed on the Vakalatnama. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner had earlier put the signature on a complaint before the Police.It was noted that if the petitioner could sign on the complaint before the Police, it was unlikely that he would put a thumb impression on the Vakalatnama.Finding substance in the arguement, the Court directed that the remaining three petitioners to explain why the fourth petitioner had only affixed his thumb impression on the Vakalatnama when his signature on the Police complaint clearly indicated that he wasn't an illiterate person and that he was capable fo signing documents.The Court wasn't satisfied with the replies submitted by the petitioners.This is one of the top most legal judgements in India.

Therefore, in the end, it concluded that the petition was filed on behalf of the fourth petitioner without his instructions or by forging his thumb impression on Vakalatnama.The Court observed on this,"Court is of the view that Petitioners have not only not approached the Court with clean hands but their conduct appears to be contumacious as well, besides attracting relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code."