Chandra Shekhar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 20636 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7740 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Secondary Edu. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajat Gangwar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kr Singh Suryvanshi
 

 
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

1. Heard Sri Rajat Gangwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Sanjay Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri R.K.Singh Suryavanshi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5.

2. This Court had passed the following order on 19.11.2022:-

"Shri Rajat Gangwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in pursuance of the selection made by the Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Education Selection Board in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 2013. The admit card was issued to the petitioner for examination held on 25.01.2015 and the interview letter for 10.12.2016 on 30.11.2016. Thereafter after selection the petitioner's panel was sent for Mohan Prasad Inter College, Sankalp Kheda, Sitapur from where on the directions of the Hon'ble Supereme Court, the petitioner was shifted to Basant Lal Inter College, Tulsipur, Balrampur. Accordingly in pursuance of the direction issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Balrampur by means of the letter dated 20.07.2021. The petitioner was appointed on 29.7.2021 by the respondent no.6. Thereafter he was allowed to join and since then he is working as Assistant Teacher. However, by means of the impugned order, the respondent no.7 has been directed to lodge F.I.R. against the petitioner and make recovery of the salary to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not been selected by the Selection Board and none of his documents is available in the Board, whereas the petitioner has duly been selected by the Board.

Shri R.K. Singh Suryavanshi, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5 submits that the petitioner has not been selected by the Board and he produced the verification report dated 06.10.2022 referred in the impugned order dated 18.10.2022.

Shri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions, submits that on verification it has been found that no panel in regard to the petitioner was received therefore the letter dated 20.07.2021, on the basis of which the petitioner has been appointed is forged, therefore the petitioner has to clarify to position and as to from where and how he got these documents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a week's time to file supplementary affidavit clarifying the position.

List on 28.11.2022 in top ten cases.

In the meantime, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall also verify as to what letter has been issued on the number referred in the letter of the D.I.O.S. "

3. Thereafter on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the following order was passed on 28.11.2022:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted ten days' further time to file supplementary affidavit in terms of the order dated 19.11.2022.

List on 12.12.2022 in terms of earlier order.

In the meantime, learned Standing Counsel shall complete his instructions."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid two orders were communicated to the petitioner but the petitioner has failed to provide any clarification and has also not got prepared the supplementary affidavit.

5. In view of above and the submissions recorded in the order dated 19.11.2022, it is apparent that the petitioner has tried to obtain the order from this Court by suppression of material facts, challenging the order dated 18.10.2022. Suppression of material facts is nothing but fraud with the Court for obtaining favourable order.

6. This Court is of the view that doors of justice will be closed for a litigant whose case is based on false or suppression of material facts. Fraud and justice never dwell together. They are opposite to each other. Concealment and suppression of material facts is nothing but a fraud to obtain the order in his favour. It is a settled proposition of law that one who has not come with clean hands is not entitled for any relief. Therefore on this ground itself the petitioner is not entitled for any relief or interference by this Court.

7. The view of this Court is covered by the judgment and order dated 08.12.2021 passed in Shri K. Jayaram and Others Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others; Civil Appeal No(s). 7550-7553 of 2021. The relevant paragraph nos.12 to 16 are extracted here-in-below:-

"12. It is well-settled that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced."

8. This Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India has held that a prerogative remedy is not available as a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, a writ court would indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party which is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. It was held thus:

"33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter."

9. In Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, this Court has reiterated that the writ remedy is an equitable one and a person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. Such person should not suppress any material fact but also should not take recourse to legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law.

10. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others, it was held thus:

"34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.

35. The underlying object has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in the leading case of R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commrs.- (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA) in the following words: (KB p. 514)

"? it has been for many years the rule of the court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts?it says facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it?the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts; and the penalty by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been 3 (2008)12 SCC 481 fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement."

(emphasis supplied)

36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a writ court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating, "We will not listen to your application because of what you have done." The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it.

37. In Kensington Income Tax Commrs.(supra), Viscount Reading, C.J. observed: (KB pp. 495-96) "? Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant's affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that the Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit." (emphasis supplied)

38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because "the court knows law but not facts".

39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs.(supra) is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court."

16. It is necessary for us to state here that in order to check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter and more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistent orders through different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability of making a false statement, we are of the view that the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations was or is pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law."

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S S.J.S. Business Enterprises vs State Of Bihar And Ors; MANU/SC/0236/2004 / (2004) 7 SCC 166 has held that as a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Versus Aafloat Textiles India Pvt. Ltd. others; (2009) 11 SCC 18, has held that suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs Versus Joganath (Dead) by LRs and others; (1994) 1 SCC 1, has held that "fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago and a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law.

13. In view of above, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief because the writ petition suffers from suppression of material facts which is nothing but a fraud on the Court for obtaining a favourable order, therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.

14. The writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.20,000/-, which shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, failing which the Senior Registrar of this Court shall take appropriate steps for recovery of the said amount from the petitioner.

Order Date :- 12.12.2022

Akanksha