Supreme Court: In a civil appeal filed by Auroville Foundation against the Judgment passed by the Madras High Court, setting aside the Notification dated 01-06-2022 containing the Standing Order issued by Auroville, the division bench of Bela M. Trivedi* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. held that neither the Auroville Foundation Act (‘AF Act’) nor the Auroville Foundation Rules, 1997 (‘Rules’) confer any right upon the Residents’ Assembly, nor upon an individual resident of Auroville, to be part of any committee or council constituted by the Governing Board for the efficient discharge of its duties and functions under the Act. The functions of the Residents’ Assembly are limited solely to advising the Governing Board on matters related to the residents of Auroville and making recommendations as specified in Section 19 of the AF Act, without extending beyond those bounds.
Background
In 1965, the “Mother” (Mirra Alfassa, a French spiritual collaborator of Sri Aurobindo, a renowned spiritual reformer, philosopher, and educationist) envisioned the establishment of Auroville, aiming to create an international township where people of all countries could live in peace and harmony, transcending all creeds, politics, and nationalities, to realise human unity.
The original Galaxy Plan, conceived by the “Mother” in 1968, was later revised in 1972 as the First Master Plan, which laid out four zones in Auroville. This Master Plan was approved by the Governing Board and Residents’ Assembly in 1999 and later approved by the Town and Country Planning Organisation in 2001.
Under Section 11(3) of the AF Act, the Governing Board issued Standing Orders, in line with the Act and its associated Rules, to manage various matters as deemed appropriate. The first Standing Orders were issued in 2011 and have been revised over time. A series of litigations followed, with multiple petitions filed challenging the Standing Orders and Office Orders issued by Auroville, resulting in ongoing legal proceedings.
The respondent herein filed a writ petition challenging the office order dated 01-06-2022 issued by the Auroville Foundation. She sought a direction for the Foundation to appoint members nominated by the Residents’ Assembly through its Working Council to the Auroville Town Development Council (‘ATDC’). The Single Bench dismissed the petition but directed the Foundation to issue a corrigendum to the office order, specifying the statutory power under which it was issued. In compliance, the Foundation issued the Corrigendum to the Standing Order.
Despite the dismissal of the earlier petition, the respondent filed another writ petition, challenging the notification dated 01-06-2022, which included the Standing Order. The Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned judgment, allowed the petition and set aside the impugned Notification and Standing Order issued by the Auroville Foundation. This led to the filing of the present appeal.
Analysis and Decision
The Court discussed the history of Auroville, emphasizing the objectives and rationale behind the enactment of the A.F. Act. It noted that in response to requests from the majority of Auroville residents, the Government of India issued the Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1980, which was later replaced by the Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980. Ultimately, the Government of India created a unique legal status for Auroville by passing the Auroville Foundation Act (AF Act), solidifying the governance and development framework for the Auroville community.
The Court remarked that form the array of litigations, it is explicitly clear that a small group of disgruntled residents of Auroville, who instead of supporting and cooperating the Governing Board of Auroville, in implementing the approved Master Plan and developing Auroville as envisioned by the “Mother,” kept themselves busy by filing the litigations one after the other, and causing obstructions in the smooth implementation of the Master Plan.
The Court observed that a series of petitions were filed consecutively, all of which were dismissed by the High Court. Subsequently, the respondent herein also filed a Writ Petition seeking nearly the same relief as sought in the earlier petitions, challenging the Office Order dated 01-06-2022.
The Court noted that the Auroville had raised specific preliminary objections in its counter affidavit regarding the maintainability of the petition and the suppression of material facts by the respondent. However, despite these serious issues being highlighted, the High Court, unfortunately, entertained the Writ Petition of the respondent without addressing or considering these objections.
The Court reiterated that the Doctrine of “Clean hands and non-suppression of material facts” is applicable with full force to every proceeding before any judicial forum. The party invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and disclose all correct and material facts in his Writ Petition.
The Court highlighted that if it is brought to the notice of the Court that the petition has been guilty of suppression of material and relevant facts or has not come with clean hands, such conduct must be seriously viewed by the courts as the abuse of process of law and the petition must be dismissed on that ground alone without entering into the merits of the matter.
The Court stated that in the present case, the respondent, had previously challenged the Office Order dated 01-06-2022 by filing Writ Petition. The High Court, while dismissing the petition through its Order dated 13-10-2022, had explicitly held that the activities provided under Section 19 of the Act for the Residents’ Assembly were intended to supplement, not replace, the main powers and functions vested in the Governing Board under the Act. It was further held that the writ petitioner, as a member of the Assembly, could not claim that her rights or the functions of the Assembly, as entrusted by the provisions of the Act, were being adversely affected. Despite this, and the fact that the dismissal order had become final as the respondent did not challenge it further, the respondent filed a second writ petition (present proceedings), seeking substantially the same reliefs without disclosing the earlier dismissal.
The Court said that this failure to disclose this material fact should have been taken seriously by the High Court, as it amounted to an abuse of the court’s process.
The Court emphasized that the ATDC had been constituted and reconstituted by the Governing Board through Standing Orders, in alignment with the proper implementation of the approved Master Plan. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the regulation issued by the Governing Board in 2011 clearly empowered them to issue Standing Orders on matters related to the provisions of Section 11(3) of the Act, as well as any other matters they deemed necessary for the development of Auroville.
Further, the Court stated that Section 16 of the Act empowers the Governing Board to appoint committees as necessary for the efficient discharge of its duties and the performance of its functions under the Act. According to Rule 5 of the Rules, the Governing Board is authorized to constitute committees under Section 16(1), and under Rule 5(2), it is solely the responsibility of the Governing Board to determine the composition and functions of every committee it forms.
The Court concluded that neither the AF Act nor the Rules confer any right upon the Residents’ Assembly, nor upon an individual resident of Auroville, to be part of any committee or council constituted by the Governing Board for the efficient discharge of its duties and functions under the Act
Upon a combined reading of the provisions of the AF Act and the Rules, the Court concluded that the Governing Board is vested with all the powers necessary to exercise and discharge the functions of the Foundation, and that the general superintendence, direction, and management of the Foundation’s affairs rest solely with the Governing Board.
However, the Court clarified that while Section 19(1)(c) required the Residents’ Assembly to assist the Governing Board in formulating the Master Plan of Auroville, that stage had already been completed when the Master Plan was prepared by the Governing Board, in consultation with the Residents’ Assembly as per Section 17(e), and was approved by the Central Government’s Ministry of Human Resource Development in 2001.
Thus, the Court opined that the impugned Standing Order dated 01-06-2022, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. There is no legal or statutory right conferred upon the Residents’ Assembly or an individual resident to be part of any committee or council constituted by the Governing Board in exercise of its powers under Section 11(3), 16(1), and 17(e) of the Act, read with Rule 5(1) and 5(2) of the Rules. The functions of the Residents’ Assembly are limited solely to advising the Governing Board on matters related to the residents of Auroville and making recommendations as specified in Section 19 of the Act, without extending beyond those bounds.
Considering this, the Court concluded that the High Court had seriously misinterpreted the provisions of the AF Act and erred in setting aside the impugned Notification containing the Standing Order dated 01-06-2022. As the impugned Order was found to be highly erroneous, it was set aside
The Court observed that some disgruntled and discontented residents continued to file petitions one after another, unnecessarily dragging the Auroville into prolonged litigation. The Writ Petition filed by the respondent before the High Court was identified as one of these ill-motivated petitions, aimed at abusing the process of law, hindering the development of Auroville, and obstructing the smooth functioning of the Governing Board of the Foundation. In light of this, the Appeal was allowed, and the respondent was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited before the Supreme Court Legal Service Committee within two weeks from the date of this order.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
