Allahabad High Court
Sunil Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 10 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:162651 A.F.R. Reserved on 6.7.2023 Delivered on 10.8.2023 Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9429 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava, petitioner in person and learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 to 4 as well as Mr. Madan Lal Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5.
2. Petitioner in his writ petition has stated that he has filed a complaint to District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj wherein he has mentioned that one Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra has obtained appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Bal Kalyan Purv Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Buxi Khurd, Daraganj, Prayagraj on the basis of forged documents, therefore, inquiry may be conducted in the matter and the appointment of aforesaid Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra be cancelled.
3. Petitioner appearing in person has submitted that though cognizance of the aforesaid complaint lodged by the petitioner has been taken by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj but till date the inquiry in the matter has not been completed, therefore it is in the interest of justice that a direction be issued by this Court for completion of the inquiry and consequential action over the complaint of the petitioner.
4. Mr. Madan Lal Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5 has vehemently submitted that the petitioner while filing the present writ petition has concealed material facts which were in his knowledge at the time of filing of this writ petition and therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed by this Court as it is well settled through catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if petitioner while filing the writ petition conceals material facts then he is not entitled for any relief from the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5 has submitted that this writ petition was listed before this Court on 26.5.2023 and when this fact was brought to the notice of this Court, then following order was passed:-
"Vakalatnama as preferred by Sri Madan Lal Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.5 is taken on record.
Put up this case on 30.05.2023 as fresh alongwith Writ Petition No.4262 of 2023."
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5 has further submitted that on the complaint of the petitioner, District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj has passed an order on 6.2.2023 whereby inquiry against Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra has been instituted and further direction was given to stop the payment of salary to aforesaid Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra.
7. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that aforesaid Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra has challenged the order dated 6.2.2023 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj by filing Writ-A No.4262 of 2023 wherein he has also prayed that proceedings arising out of the complaint submitted by complainant Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava may be quashed.
8. This Court after hearing the aforesaid Writ-A No.4262 of 2023 has passed order on 11.4.2023 which is extracted as under:-
"Heard Shri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Himanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.
The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 6.2.2023 passed by the respondent No. 3/District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj whereby and whereunder the payment of salary to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher has been withheld. Prayer for mandamus directing the respondents not to conduct further inquiry upon the issue which already stands decided has also been made. Further prayer for mandamus directing the respondents to disburse regular monthly salary as well as arrears of salary to the petitioner has also been made.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner possessing the requisite qualification of High School, Intermediate and B.T.C., was appointed in the Institution in the year 1983 and since then the petitioner is discharging his duties diligently and has unblemished record. Similar motivated complaints were moved in the year 2021 which was inquired into by the Block Education Officer, who found the complaint to be fabricated and submitted his report on 2.11.2021. It is further contended that the present complaint was filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava in counterblast as an FIR was lodged by the Manager of the Institution against Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, wife of the complainant for getting the documents lost and fabricating forged documents (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). The inquiry has been initiated on the motivated complaint and during the pendency of inquiry, the salary of the petitioner has been stopped.
This Court finds that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1983. The petitioner has annexed the appointment letter and the application form in which the qualification of the petitioner is mentioned that he has passed BTC (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). No concrete finding has yet been returned as regards the non eligibility of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher.
In the opinion of the Court, the salary of the petitioner cannot be withheld in absence of any concrete finding regarding his non eligibility to the post in question. It is not disputed that the petitioner has been continuously discharging his duties on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Institution in question.
Matter requires consideration.
Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondent Nos 1 and 2, if so advised, may file counter affidavit in the meanwhile.
List this case after expiry of aforesaid period.
Until further orders of this Court, an interim mandamus is issued to the respondent No. 3 to disburse the current salary of the petitioner month to month, as and when the same falls due."
9. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that even Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava, who is the petitioner in the present writ petition, has filed an application for his impleadment in Writ-A No.4262 of 2023 on 3.3.2023 on which this Court has passed an order dated 15.3.2023 whereby his application was directed to be listed with previous papers at an early date.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5 has vehemently submitted that Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava in his present writ petition i.e. Writ-A No.9429 of 2023 has not disclosed regarding filing of the aforementioned Writ-A No.4262 of 2023 (Arun Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others) and further has also not disclosed the aforesaid order dated 11.4.2023 passed in Writ-A No.4262 of 2023 though he has already put in appearance in the aforesaid writ petition by filing impleadment application.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5 has further argued that petitioner Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava was fully aware about the filing of Writ-A No.4262 of 2023 and the order dated 11.4.2023 passed in the said writ petition but he has deliberately concealed the said facts while filing his present writ petition i.e. Writ-A No.9429 of 2023. It has been further stressed upon that the intention of Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava is crystal clear that by concealing material facts he has made an attempt to obtain an order from this Court for conclusion of the inquiry and consequential action pursuant to his complaint filed against aforesaid Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra.
12. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that petitioner Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava was fully aware about filing of Writ-A No.4262 of 2023 (Arun Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others) and the order dated 11.4.2023 passed in the said writ petition but he deliberately has not disclosed those facts in his present writ petition i.e. Writ-A No.9429 of 2023.
13. It is well settled through catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as judgments of this Court that a person who conceals material facts while filing writ petition is not entitled for any relief from the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449 has 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. Relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India (supra) is extracted as under:-
"32. 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.
33. The object underlying the above principle has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in R v. Kensington Income Tax Commrs. in the following words:
"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 - 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 fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside, any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement".
34. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a Writ Court will indeed bear 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, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. 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."
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment rendered in the case of K. D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 has held that 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 since prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice, therefore, it is of utmost necessity that petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and must put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and if there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his writ petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in the case of K. D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others (supra) is extracted as under:-
"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 larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it.
37. In Kensington Income Tax Commrs, 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 applicant was not candid and did not fairly state the 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 this 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 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 Commissioners 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, maneuvering 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment rendered in the case of K. Jayaram and others vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others, reported in (2022) 12 SCC 815 has held that if petitioner while filing writ petition conceals material facts from the Court, then he is not entitled for any relief in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in K. Jayaram and others vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others (supra) is extracted as under:-
"14. 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.
15. In the instant case, since the appellants have not disclosed the filing of the suit and its dismissal and also the dismissal of the appeal against the judgment of the civil court, the appellants have to be non-suited on the ground of suppression of material facts. They have not come to the court with clean hands and they have also abused the process of law. Therefore, they are not entitled for the extraordinary, equitable and discretionary relief."
17. I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically laid down the law that the petitioner while approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must disclose all the relevant facts in his writ petition and if petitioner does not disclose the relevant facts and material, then he is not entitled for any relief from the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
18. In the present case, petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition was fully aware about the filing of Writ-A No.4262 of 2023 (Arun Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others) and was also aware of the order dated 11.4.2023 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition but deliberately he has not disclosed the said facts in the present writ petition. Petitioner has not disclosed the aforesaid facts in his writ petition only with an intention to somehow obtain an order from this court for conclusion of the inquiry and consequential action pursuant to his complaint. Since petitioner has concealed material facts which have direct bearing on the result of this writ petition, as such I am of the view that petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
19. I further find that when the facts of the present writ petition are seen in the light of the aforementioned law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then it becomes crystal clear that petitioner has concealed material facts while filing present writ petition before this Court and therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
20. In view of the aforesaid reasons and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, mentioned herein above, present writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.8.2023 Salim