Allahabad High Court
Dr. Mohammad Hamza vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 3 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:68843-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 10312 of 2025
Dr. Mohammad Hamza
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical/Health Services Lko. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Syed Mohammad Abid, Sonu Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 3
HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the property and has applied for a license to run a clinic and his application regarding the same is pending for last more than three months.
3. Per contra, Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submits that a death has been caused in a clinic named Bagiawala hospital, which was runned by the father of the petitioner. A first information report was also lodged regarding the said incident as Case Crime No.354 of 2025 under Section 106 Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) at Police Station- Biswa, District- Sitapur. It is contended that due to non-cooperation in the investigation by the petitioner and his father, the investigation could not be completed and, therefore, the application of the petitioner is kept pending.4. Upon the perusal of writ petition, it appears that there is suppression of material facts by the petitioner regarding the aforesaid first information report.
5. In S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar reported in (2004) 7 SCC 166, the Supreme Court observed that writ court has power to deny the relief prayed in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if the petitioner has suppressed a fact which is a material one, that is, one which would have had an effect on the merits of the case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are delineated below: "13. 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. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. It must be a matter which was material for the consideration of the court, whatever view the court may have taken [R. v. General Commrs. for the purposes of the Income Tax Act for the District of Kensington, (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)] . Thus when the liability to income tax was questioned by an applicant on the ground of her non-residence, the fact that she had purchased and was maintaining a house in the country was held to be a material fact, the suppression of which disentitled her to the relief claimed [Ibid.] . Again when in earlier proceedings before this Court, the appellant had undertaken that it would not carry on the manufacture of liquor at its distillery and the proceedings before this Court were concluded on that basis, a subsequent writ petition for renewal of the licence to manufacture liquor at the same distillery before the High Court was held to have been initiated for oblique and ulterior purposes and the interim order passed by the High Court in such subsequent application was set aside by this Court [State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd., (1977) 2 SCC 431 : AIR 1977 SC 781] . Similarly, a challenge to an order fixing the price was rejected because the petitioners had suppressed the fact that an agreement had been entered into between the petitioners and the Government relating to the fixation of price and that the impugned order had been replaced by another order [Welcom Hotel v. State of A.P., (1983) 4 SCC 575 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 872 : AIR 1983 SC 1015] . 14. Assuming that the explanation given by the appellant that the suit had been filed by one of the Directors of the Company without the knowledge of the Director who almost simultaneously approached the High Court under Article 226 is unbelievable (sic), the question still remains whether the filing of the suit can be said to be a fact material to the disposal of the writ petition on merits. We think not. The existence of an adequate or suitable alternative remedy available to a litigant is merely a factor which a court entertaining an application under Article 226 will consider for exercising the discretion to issue a writ under Article 226 [A.N. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1506] . But the existence of such remedy does not impinge upon the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with the matter itself if it is in a position to do so on the basis of the affidavits filed. If, however, a party has already availed of the alternative remedy while invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226, it would not be appropriate for the court to entertain the writ petition. The rule is based on public policy but the motivating factor is the existence of a parallel jurisdiction in another court. But this Court has also held in Chandra Bhan Gosain v. State of Orissa [(1963) 14 STC 766, 918 : (1964) 2 SCR 879] that even when an alternative remedy has been availed of by a party but not pursued that the party could prosecute proceedings under Article 226 for the same relief. This Court has also held that when a party has already moved the High Court under Article 226 and failed to obtain relief and then moved an application under Article 32 before this Court for the same relief, normally the Court will not entertain the application under Article 32. But where in the parallel jurisdiction, the order is not a speaking one or the matter has been disposed of on some other ground, this Court has, in a suitable case, entertained the application under Article 32 [Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110 : AIR 1970 SC 898] . Instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the alternative remedy had been availed of, the Court may call upon the party to elect whether it will proceed with the alternative remedy or with the application under Article 226 [K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207] . Therefore, the fact that a suit had already been filed by the appellant was not such a fact the suppression of which could have affected the final disposal of the writ petition on merits."
6. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that it is the legal duty casted upon the petitioner to approach the court with a true case and prove it by true evidence. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are quoted herein-below: "5. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. 6. ?. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage?.. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party."
7. We do not see any reason to interfere in such matters, where the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. The petitioner has patently suppressed the information regarding the first information report lodged against him as there is no mention of the same in the writ petition. Having approached this Court in the aforesaid manner clearly disentitles them from any relief in writ jurisdiction.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)
November 3, 2025
Ashutosh
