º 1ITEM NO.MM-6A COURT NO.6 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).10214/2012(From the judgement and order dated 19/03/2012 in WP No.490/2012of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)SADANAND SHANKAR MANE & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and exemption fromfiling c/c of the impugned Judgment and with prayer for interimrelief)Date: 27/03/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYAFor Petitioner(s) Mr.Sanjay Parikh, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar,Adv. Mr.B.Praveen, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Taken on board. This petition is directed against order dated 19.03.2012of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby thepetitioners' prayer for restraining the respondents frominterfering with their possession over the property in question wasrejected. We have heard Shri Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel for thepetitioners and carefully perused the record. In our view, the special leave petition is liable to be 2dismissed because the petitioners have not approached the Courtwith clean hands inasmuch as while annexing as many as 24 documentsrunning into about 120 pages, they have conveniently omitted toplace on record copy of the L.C.Suit (St.) No.616 of 2012 filed on28.02.2012 and order dated 05.03.2012 passed by the City CivilCourt refusing to grant an injunction and, thereby, deprived this
Court of an opportunity to consider the reasons which prevailedwith the concerned Court for not entertaining the prayer of thepetitioners. We are further of the view that the reasons assigned bythe High Court for declining the petitioners' prayer are legallycorrect and there is no valid ground much less justification forentertaining the prayer of the petitioners which, if granted, wouldadversely affect execution of a project which has been undertakenby the respondents in larger public interest. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.(Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master