The Supreme Court, today, dismissed a Special Leave Petition with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- wherein the Petitioner, All India EPF Staff Federation suppressed the filling of an application before the Delhi High Court and the order passed therein. The Court remarked that it is not able to trust the lawyers and that it is frequently coming across cases where facts are suppressed.

The Court was hearing a matter where the Delhi High Court had refused to give interim relief to the All India EPF Staff Federation in a plea alleging that 159 posts of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner were sought to be filled on the basis of Draft Rules.

The Vacation Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal ordered, "...The present SLP was filed challenging the order dated 20th March 2024. The Delhi High Court website shows that on 3rd May 2024, the Petitioners moved an application. The Order of 3rd May 2024 shows that the Advocate for the Petitioner, after some arguments, did not press the application and therefore the same was dismissed. Therefore, the Court directed that the case should be listed on 5th September 2024. Most importantly in the present SLP the fact of filling the application...was suppressed and even the order dated 3rd May 2024 was suppressed. In any event, the interim order passed by the High Court adequately protects the interests of the petitioner as all appointments have been made subject to the final outcome of the pending writ petition. Accordingly, we dismiss the SLP on account of suppression of material facts and direct the Petitioner to pay a cost of Rs. 25,000 to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority."

When the lawyer said that the Court was being harsh by imposing cost, Justice Oka said, "Even if you say we are harsh, we will take it as a compliment because time has come to come down heavily on such petitions where there is suppression of facts...On Monday and Friday at least in ten cases, we have to do this exercise of going to the High Court's website to find out the correct orders passed in the Petitions."

When the matter was taken up for hearing, Justice Oka said, "Please tell us after the impugned order was passed, did you move to the High Court?... Now we have developed this practice when the matter is pending before the High Court, we go to the website of the High Court and check...because sometimes facts are suppressed. Here also, on 3rd May, you filed an application for preponement of the date...that application was not pressed."

The Counsel for the Petitioner said, "No no, I am not on that. Please see the impugned order."

Justice Oka sternly said, "But we are on that. Please see this order. Why this order was suppressed while filing the SLP, tell us?... Your grievance is that without granting interim relief the case has been adjourned to September. Thereafter on the 3rd of May, you moved an application for preponing the date...and you have not pressed that application. Please read this order."

Counsel for the Petitioner replied, "My grievance is not that order, my grievance is that interim relief was declined."

Justice Oka said, "Listen to us, the case was adjourned to September, therefore, you moved the Court on 3rd May for preponement...that application was not pressed and that matter was adjourned to September...you have suppressed that while filing this SLP...Was it not your duty, before filing the SLP in June, to inform the Court?... We are dismissing your SLP on the grounds of suppression of facts...If you go on arguing this, it will only increase the cost...This is such a sad state of affairs. In the Supreme Court, you suppress such orders and you are brazenly supporting the suppression of facts. We expect the members of the bar to be submissive, you withdraw this or we will impose a cost upon you."

Counsel apologised and further submitted that he had filed two applications before the High Court and he has filed the present SLP against the order in one of the Applications.

Justice Oka, "It is not a mistake. We had to download this order from the Delhi High Court's website and point it out to you. What is this going on? This is the highest court in the country, Judges cannot trust the lawyers. Therefore in such matters, they have to go to the High Court's website and download it. Everyday, we have to do this."

Counsel further said, "Draft recruitment rules cannot be the basis of making the appointment and the recruitment. In this case, the UPSC has said in its affidavit that we proceed on the basis of the notified recruitment rules. In this case, draft recruitment rules were imposed...They have not been notified or enforced."

The Court then dictated its order dismissing the matter.

Cause Title: All India EPF Staff Federation v. Union Of India and Ors. (SLP(C) No. 13329-13330/2024)

Justice Abhay S OkaJustice Rajesh Bindal

Aastha Kaushik