Rohit Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 10572 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.                         
 

 
Judgement Reserved on 09.11.2022
 
Judgement Delivered on 11.04.2023
 
Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17496 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Rohit Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Rai,Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

1. Heard Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Abhishek Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for state-respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 25/26.05.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Bijnor/respondent No.2. A further prayer has also been made to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to discharge the duties of Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Baldiya Block Haldaur District Bijnor.

3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner was elected as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Baldiya Block Haldaur District Bijnor in the election held on 19.04.2021. Certain complaints were made against the petitioner regarding work and conduct of the Panchayat and in this regard a notice dated 11.04.2022 was issued to the petitioner by the District Magistrate Bijnor/respondent No.2 making allegations that payment in number heads were made from One Active Code and the petitioner was granted fifteen (15) days time to submit his reply. Though as per notice dated 11.04.2022, fifteen days time was going to be expired on 26.04.2022 but in the meanwhile due to acute angle glaucoma severe health condition, the petitioner was going in serious medical treatment and supervision in a hospital in Bijnor from 15.04.2022 to 15.05.2022. After the aforesaid treatment, the petitioner came at his house and take a complete two weeks bed rest and medication. On 31.05.2022 after recovery from his ailment when the petitioner visited to Bock Development Office Haldaur, for submission of his reply, he got information that the order impugned has already been passed by the respondent No.2.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed without providing opportunity of hearing as well as submission of reply, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. It is argued that second proviso of Section 95(1)(g) provides that no action shall be taken against the Pradhan or Member of the Gram Panchayat under sub Section (1(g) of Section 95 of U.P. Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 except after providing reasonable opportunity of showing cause to the body or person concerned, in this view of the matter it is argued that since no opportunity has been given to show cause, the order is liable to be set aside. It is argued that the impugned order is passed without application of mind and in casual manner. The Paragraph Nos.8, 10, 11 are reproduced below:-

8. That as per the notice dated 11.04.2022, the petitioner was required to submit his reply within Fifteen days from the date of issuance of the letter which was expiring on 26.04.2022, bit meanwhile it is relevant to mention here that due to acute anple glaucoma severe health condition, petitioner was going in serious medical treatment and supervision in a hospital in Bijnor from dated 15.04.2022 to 15.05.2022, however after hospital treatment petitioner came at his house and take a complete two wecks bed rest and medication, so that he can get speedy recovery from ailment; A true/photocopy of medical certificate issued by the Nayan Netra Hospital through concern Doctor dated 16.05.2022 is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NOS. 2 to this writ petition.

10. That on 31.05.2022, after recovery from his ailment when the etitioner was in position to visit Block Development office, he immediately visited Block Development Office, Haldaur for regarding his reply of the notice dated 11.04.2022, but at the same time he gathered an information that an order by the District Magistrate, Bijnor has already been passed under Section 95(1)}(g) its Proviso ceasing his financial and administrative powers on 25/ 26.05.2022)\n this connection true copy of the impugned order dated 25/26.05.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Bijnor is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO.4 to this writ petition.

11. That the petitioner was served with the impugned order dated 25/26.05.2022 on 31.05.2022 at Block itself while he went to give his reply to the notice dated 11.04.2022, as well as the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Bijnor was served to the petitioner on 31.05.2022.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Virendra Yadav, Block Development Officer Haldaur Bijnor on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.It is stated in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner will not get any benefit from his Medical Certificate, copy of which is appended as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. It is argued that doctor advice, bills of medicines etc. were not submitted by him, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. It is argued that the petitioner has stated in the petitioner that he was on bed rest from 15.04.2022 to 15.05.2022 while the petitioner has submitted his reply to the notice dated 11.04.2022 in the office of District Panchayat Raj Officer Bijnor on 27.04.2022 and along with the aforesaid reply, he also submitted copy of the Bank Statement under his signature and stamp on which the date is mentioned as 19.04.2022, copy of the reply is appended as Anneexure No.1 to the counter affidavit. It is argued that from perusal of the same, it is clear that the petitioner was healthy from 19.04.2022 to 27.04.2022. In this view of the matter, it is argued that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, therefore, the petition is liable to rejected. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit a judgement passed in the case of Ramjas Foundation Vs. Union of India reported in (2010) 14 SCC 38 has been cited and relevant paragraph is also quoted and on the basis of the same, it is argued that if a litigant does not come to the Court with clean hands, he is not entitled to be heard and indeed, such a person is not entitled to any relief from any judicial forum.

6. For rebutting the counter affidavit, no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, hence the averments made in the counter affidavit is treated to be true.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. From perusal of the record, it transpires that pursuant to the notice dated 11.04.2022, the petitioner was directed to submit his reply within fifteen days but according to the case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition due to ill health, he was not able to submit his reply and when he went to the office of District Panchayat Raj Officer, Haldaur on 31.05.2022, then he transpires that the order has already been passed against him. In the counter affidavit, copy of the reply dated 27.04.2022 was appended as Annexure CA1. Apart from the same, there is clear finding recorded in the order impugned that the District Magistrate Bijnor/respondent No.2 that reply has been duly submitted by the petitioner and after considering the same, the order impugned has been passed. The relevant part is quoted below:-

"कारण बताओं नोटिस निर्गत किया गया था तथा निर्गत कारण बताओं नोटिस के सम्बन्ध में ग्राभ प्रधान एवं सम्बन्धित सचिव द्वारा अपना स्पष्टीकरण प्रस्तुत किया। "

9. From perusal of the same, it is clear that finding regarding filing of the reply in respect of the show cause notice has been deliberately and willfully concealed by the petitioner while filing the present writ petition.

10. The issue regarding approaching the Court by concealing the facts has been examined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on number of occasions and it has been opined that the same is polluting the stream of justice.

11. In Abhyudya Sanstha Vs. Union of India, (2011) 6 SCC 145, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while declining relief to the petitioners therein, who did not approach the court with clean hands, opined as under:-

"18. ... In our view, the appellants deserve to be non suited because they have not approached the Court with clean hands. The plea of inadvertent mistake put forward by the learned senior counsel for the appellants and their submission that the Court may take lenient view and order regularisation of the admissions already made sounds attractive but does not merit acceptance. Each of the appellants consciously made a statement that it had been granted recognition by the NCTE, which necessarily implies that recognition was granted in terms of Section 14 of the Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the 2007 Regulations. Those managing the affairs of the appellants do not belong to the category of innocent, illiterate/uneducated persons, who are not conversant with the relevant statutory provisions and the court process. The very fact that each of the appellants had submitted LPASW No. 82/2019 Page 7 application in terms of Regulation 7 and made itself available for inspection by the team constituted by WRC, Bhopal shows that they were fully aware of the fact that they can get recognition only after fulfilling the conditions specified in the Act and the Regulations and that WRC, Bhopal had not granted recognition to them. Notwithstanding this, they made bold statement that they had been granted recognition by the competent authority and thereby succeeded in persuading this Court to entertain the special leave petitions and pass interim orders. The minimum, which can be said about the appellants is that they have not approached the Court with clean hands and succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently false statement. Therefore, they are not entitled to relief under Article 136 of the Constitution. This view finds support from plethora of precedents.

19. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka (1991) 3 SCC 261 and large number of other cases, this Court denied relief to the petitioner/appellant on the ground that he had not approached the Court with clean hands. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das (supra), the Court revoked the leave granted to the appellant and observed:

"It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it LPASW No. 82/2019 Page 8 would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements made by the appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained special leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterises as misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme Court may come to the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked."

20. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka's case (supra), the Court while noticing the fact regarding the stay order passed by the High Court which prevented passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer within the prescribed time period was concealed and in the aforesaid context, it observed that:

"2. ... Curiously enough, there is no reference in the special leave petitions to any of the stay orders and we came to know about these orders only when the respondents appeared in response to the notice and filed their counter- affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have a direct bearing on the question raised and the non-disclosure of the same certainly amounts to suppression of material facts. On this ground alone, the special leave petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the special leave petitions."

21. In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114, Hon'ble the Supreme Court noticed the progressive decline in the values of life and observed:

"1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahinsa" (non- violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice- delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.

2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final." (emphasis supplied)

12. In Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and another (2013) 9 SCC 199, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, considering the issue regarding concealment of facts before the Court, while observing that "court is not a laboratory where children come to play", opined as under:

"19. The second limb of the submission is whether in the obtaining factual matrix, the order passed by the High Court discharging the accused-respondent is justified in law. We have clearly stated that though the respondent was fully aware about the fact that charges had been framed against him by the learned trial Judge, yet he did not bring the same to the notice of the revisional court hearing the revision against the order taking cognizance. It is a clear case of suppression. It was within the special knowledge of the accused. Any one who takes recourse to method of suppression in a court of law, is, in actuality, playing fraud with the court, and the maxim supressio veri, expression faisi , i.e., suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. We are compelled to say so as there has been a calculated concealment of the fact before the revisional court. It can be stated with certitude that the accused- respondent tried to gain advantage by such factual suppression. The fraudulent intention is writ large. In fact, he has shown his courage of ignorance and tried to play possum.

20. The High Court, as we have seen, applied the principle "when infrastructure collapses, the superstructure is bound to collapse". However, as the order has been obtained by practising fraud and suppressing material fact before a court of law to gain advantage, the said order cannot be allowed to stand." (emphasis supplied)

13. Similar view has been expressed in Amar Singh v. Union of India and others, (2011)7 SCC 69 and Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2013) 2 SCC 398.

14. In a recent judgment in ABCD Vs. Union of India and others (2020) 2 SCC 52, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter where material facts had been concealed, while issuing notice to the petitioner therein, exercising its suo-motu contempt power, observed as under :

"15. Making a false statement on oath is an offence punishable under Section 181 of the IPC while furnishing false information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person is punishable under Section 182 of the IPC. These offences by virtue of Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code can be taken cognizance of by any court only upon a proper complaint in writing as stated in said Section. In respect of matters coming under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code, in Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan etc., (1987) 3 SCC 367 prosecution was directed to be launched after prima facie satisfaction was recorded by this Court.

16. It has also been laid down by this Court in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421 that a person who makes an attempt to deceive the court, interferes with the administration of justice and can be held guilty of contempt of court. In that case a husband who had filed a fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings was found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to two weeks imprisonment. It was observed as under:

"1. The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.

2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.

* * *

14. The legal position thus is that if the publication be with intent to deceive the court or one made with an intention to defraud, the same would be contempt, as it would interfere with administration of justice. It would, in any case, tend to interfere with the same. This would definitely be so if a fabricated document is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the case at hand the fabricated document was apparently to deceive the court; the intention to defraud is writ large. Anil Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt."

15. In K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others (2008) 12 SCC 481 it was observed:

"39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs., (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA) 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."

18. In Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and others (1995) 3 SCC 757 filing of a false affidavit was the basis for initiation of action in contempt jurisdiction and the concerned persons were punished."

16. In the case of A. Shanmugam Vs. Ariya Kashatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam represented by its President and others reported in (2012) 6 SCC 430, it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the when the Court finds falsehoods, concealment, distortion, obstruction and confusion in pleadings and documents, the Court should in addition to full restitution impose actual realistic cost. The relevant paragraph 42 and 43 of the aforesaid judgement is reproduced below:-

42. The appellant is also guilty of introducing untenable pleas. The plea 9 of adverse possession which has no foundation or basis in the facts and circumstances of the case was introduced to gain undue benefit. The court must be cautious in granting relief to a party guilty of deliberately introducing irrelevant and untenable pleas responsible for creating unnecessary confusion by introducing such documents and pleas. These h factors must be taken into consideration while granting relief and/or imposing the costs.

43. On the facts of the present case, the following principles emerge:

43.1. It is the bounden duty of the court to uphold the truth and do justice.

43.2. Every litigant is expected to state truth before the law court whether it is pleadings, affidavits or evidence. Dishonest and unscrupulous litigants have no place in law courts.

43.3. The ultimate object of the judicial proceedings is to discern the truth and do justice. It is imperative that pleadings and all other presentations before the court should be truthful.

43.4. Once the court discovers falsehood, concealment, distortion, obstruction or confusion in pleadings and documents, the court should in addition to full restitution impose appropriate costs. The court must ensure that there is no incentive for wrongdoer in the temple of justice. Truth is the foundation of justice and it has to be the common endeavour of all to uphold the truth and no one should be permitted to pollute the stream of justice."

17. It was held in the judgments referred to above that one of the two cherished basic values by Indian society for centuries is "satya" (truth) and the same has been put under the carpet by the petitioner. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system in the pre-Independence era, however, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, the values have gone down and now a litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court. They have no respect for the truth. The principle has been evolved to meet the challenge posed by this new breed of litigants. Now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim supressio veri, expression faisi, i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted.

18. For the reasons mentioned above, in my opinion, the present petition deserves to be dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-.

19. Ordered accordingly.

20. The amount of cost shall be deposited by the petitioner with U.P. State Legal Services Authority, Lucknow within a period of four weeks from today.

Order Date :- 11.04.2023

saqlain