Ajay Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 37256 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ajay Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 13 November, 2024

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:177938-DB
 
Court No. - 42
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18865 of 2024
 
Petitioner :- Ajay Pal Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Alok Mishra,G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
 

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.6, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following principal reliefs:-

"(i) Call for the record of order dated 03.10.2024 passed by respondent No.2, being Order/Office memorandum No. 1253/39-4-2024-50R/ (06)/2024 and issue a writ of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby he transfer the investigation of Case Crime No.0013 of 2024 from Agra Sector of Uttar Pradesh (Vigilance Establishment) to Crime Branch, Criminal Investigation Department (C.B.C.I.D.), as well as other consequential and further order/action taken in pursuance the impugned order dated 03.10.2024 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.5/ Vigilance Establishment, Agra Sector, Agra, Uttar Pradesh to conclude the investigation of Case Crime No.0013 of 2024, Police Station- Agra Sector (Vigilance Establishment), District Agra/U.P. Vigilance Establishment."

3. At the very outset, Mr. Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has raised an objection qua the maintainability of the instant petition on the ground of concealment of material facts as the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Shri D.C. Vaidik Inter College, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the "Institution") and vide order dated 26.08.1992 passed by the Committee of Management of the Institution, his services came to be terminated. The aforesaid proceedings was subject matter of before the Writ Court in Writ A No.-45776 of 1992 (Ajay Pal Singh Vs. Distt. Inspector of Schools and Ors.), wherein, the learned Single Judge, after considering the all relevant aspects of the matter had proceeded to dismiss the petition vide its judgment and order dated 22.05.2018. The aforesaid proceedings were challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 620 of 2018 (Ajay Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.), wherein, Division Bench had also pleased to affirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Special Appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 4.7.2018. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 in this backdrop submits that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed with an exemplary costs.

4. Confronted with above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner could not overcome the same.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India : (2007) 8 SCC 449 held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is duty bound to place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. The Apex Court Court while referring to the judgment of Scrutton, LJ. in R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, observed as under:-

"In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise-guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible."

7. In Welcome Hotel and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. etc. AIR 1983 SC 1015, the Apex Court has held that a party which has misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case.

8. In Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and others, 2003 (Suppl.) 3 SCR 352, it was reiterated after referring to various earlier decisions of the Apex Court that fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material fact vitiates all solemn acts.

9. In R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & others, JT 2004(1) SC 88 the Apex Court observed that a person, who seeks equity, must act in a fair and equitable manner.

10. In State of Andhra Pradesh & another Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao, AIR 2005 SC 3110, the Apex Court after referring to various earlier decisions held that suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the Court. The same view has been reiterated in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, AIR 2005 SC 3330.

11. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors.,[2008 (12) SCC 481] the Apex Court has held that 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 and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and 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. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayshree and Ors. v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Ors.: (2009) 3 SCC 141.

12. In Dalip Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 114], the Apex Court seriously criticized the making of false statement on oath and the attempt of a litigant in misleading the Court.

13. It is settled law that one should approach the court with clean heart and clean mind to get a relief and one who does not come with clean heart and clean mind, dis-entitles himself from getting any relief from the Court. From what has been mentioned above, it is clear that the petitioner has filed this writ petition with oblique motives and has not presented the correct facts just to gain undue advantage. Such type of practice should always be discouraged and is highly deprecated. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice.

14. We are surprised that instead of asking the time to respond the objections so raised by Mr. Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.6, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the matter on merits whereas from the perusal of the record it is crystal clear that appointment of the petitioner was subject matter of challenge before Writ Court and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide its judgment and order dated 22.05.2018. Thereafter, petitioner again challenged the same before a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 4.7.2018. We are very much surprised that the aforesaid facts have not been mentioned anywhere in the memo of the instant petition.

15. Thus, keeping in view the above catena of judgements, we have also considered the reliefs as has been prayed for and we do not find any plausible reason to quash the impugned order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby he had proceeded to transfer the investigation of Case Crime No.0013 of 2024 from Agra Sector of Uttar Pradesh (Vigilance Establishment) to Crime Branch, Criminal Investigation Department (C.B.C.I.D.). Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on both the grounds i.e. on concealment of material facts as well as on merits itself.

16. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 13.11.2024/Sachin