Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhupendra Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63128
1 WPS-10811-2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 4 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PET. (SERVICE) No. 10811 of 2004
BHUPENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND ANOTHER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Shri Karnik Singh -
Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Akshansh Shrivastava - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Shri Shankar Dayal Mishra - Advocate for the intervenor.
ORDER
In terms of the last order dated 24.11.2025, learned senior counsel contended that in the case in hand, Umesh Kumar Pandey was not required to be impleaded as a respondent, inasmuch as he was proceeded ex parte , which is evident from paragraph 3 of the impugned order dated 29.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner contained in Annexure P/1. It is further contended that as Umesh Kumar Pandey was already appointed, he was not required to be heard, and as such, non-impleadment of Umesh Kumar Pandey is immaterial.
2. It is also contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not impleaded by Umesh Kumar Pandey before the Collector, Shahdol and no relief was claimed by Umesh Kumar Pandey against the petitioners and even previously a petition i.e. W.P. No.4690/1998, was filed in which the petitioners were not impleaded by Umesh Kumar Pandey. The order passed in the aforesaid petition is contained in Annexure P/4. Thus, senior counsel Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:39:10 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63128 2 WPS-10811-2004 submits that the impleadment of Umesh Kumar Pandey in the case in hand was not necessary.
3. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the order of this Court dated 24/11/2025, it reflects that the appointment order of the petitioners was quashed by the Collector while taking cognizance of the application moved by Umesh Kumar Pandey. The order passed by the Collector was assailed by the present petitioners by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, which came to be dismissed vide order 29.09.2004. The orders of the Commissioner as well as the Collector have been assailed in this petition, without impleading Umesh Kumar Pandey. It is undisputed that the impugned orders were an offshoot of the application made by Umesh Kumar Pandey. A perusal of the order passed by Collector reflects that on the application made by Umesh Kumar Pandey, the Collector set aside the appointment order of Dhirendra Kumar Mishra as well as Bhupendra Kumar Mishra. It is also undisputed that the petitioners challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Commissioner and while filing that appeal, the petitioners impleaded Umesh Kumar Pandey as one of the respondents. The oral arguments which have been advanced today by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners do not find mention in any of the paragraphs of the memorandum of the petition. It is not clear from the pleadings as to why Umesh Kumar Pandey, on whose appointment the appointment order of the petitioners was set aside, has not been impleaded in this petition. Undisputedly, the petition was filed in the year 2004, and an interim order was also passed on 25.10.2004. For a prolonged period of 21 years, there has been an interim relief in favour of the petitioner without impleading Umesh Kumar Pandey. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:39:10NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63128 3 WPS-10811-2004
4. The lackadaisical conduct at the behest of the present petitioners of not impleading Umesh Kumar Pandey for a protracted period of about 21 years is an attempt to hoodwink the judicial process. The doctrine of clean hands, which is preeminently applicable to the present case, is rooted in the often quoted legal maxim, i.e., Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio . In other words, from an immoral act no cause of action arises. The Apex Court has consistently exposited that unscrupulous litigants who approach the Court with unclean hands are not entitled to be heard on merits, nor are they entitled to any relief.
5. The Apex Court in para 33 in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449 has held as under :
"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."
6. The Apex Court again in para 16 in the case of Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2008) 1 SCC 560 held as under :
"16. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries [(1980) 3 SCC 311 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 688] this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:39:10 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63128 4 WPS-10811-2004 petitions amounts to criminal contempt."
7. The Apex Court in para 38 and 39 in the case of K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 held as under :
"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"ÃÂ Ã Â 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 "ÃÂ Ã Â t he court knows law but not facts".
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 "ÃÂÃÂclean breast"ÃÂÃÂ cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled hands"ÃÂÃÂ.
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."
(emphasis supplied)
8. Furthermore, the Apex Court in para 1 and 2 in the case of Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 held as under :
"1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. "satya"ÃÂÃÂ (truth) and ahimsa"ÃÂÃÂ (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:39:10 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63128 5 WPS-10811-2004 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."
9. The Apex Court in the case of Kishore Samrite Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2013) 2 SCC 398 held as under :
"32. The cases of abuse of process of court and such allied matters have been arising before the courts consistently. This Court has had many occasions where it dealt with the cases of this kind and it has clearly stated the principles that would govern the obligations of a litigant while approaching the court for redressal of any grievance and the consequences of abuse of process of court. We may recapitulate and state some of the principles. It is difficult to state such principles exhaustively and with such accuracy that would uniformly apply to a variety of cases. These are:
32.1. Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with "ÃÂÃÂunclean hands". Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor are entitled to any relief.
32.2. The people, who approach the court for relief on an ex parte statement, are under a contract with the court that they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant. 32.3. The obligation to approach the court with clean hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by this Court.
32.4. Quests for personal gains have become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:39:10 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63128 6 WPS-10811-2004 falsehood and misrepresent and suppress facts in the court proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent have overshadowed the old ethos of litigative values for small gains.
32.5. 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. 32.6. The court must ensure that its process is not abused and in order to prevent abuse of process of court, it would be justified even in insisting on furnishing of security and in cases of serious abuse, the court would be duty-bound to impose heavy costs."
(emphasis supplied)
10. The Apex Court in the case of Uflex Ltd. v. State of T.N. reported in (2022) 1 SCC 165 in Para 56 has observed as under:-
"56. We may note that this endeavour in India is not unique to our country and in a way adopts the principle prevalent in England of costs following the event. The position may be somewhat dif erent in the United States but then there are dif erent principles applicable where champerty is prevalent. No doubt in most of the countries like India the discretion is with the court. There has to be a proportionality to the costs and if they are unreasonable, the doubt would be resolved in favour of the paying party [ UK Civil Procedure Rule 44.2.] . As per Halsbury's Laws of England, the discretion to award costs must b e exercised judicially and in accordance with reason and justice. [ Vol. 10, 4th Edn. (Para 15).] The following principles have been set out therein:
"In deciding what order (if any) to make about costs, the court must have regard to all the circumstances, including:
(i) The conduct of all the parties;
(ii) Whether a party has succeeded on part of his case, even if he has not been wholly successful; and
(iii) Any payment into court or admissible of er to settle made by a party which is drawn to the court's attention. The conduct of the parties includes:
(a) Conduct before, as well as during, the proceedings and in particular the extent to which the parties followed any relevant pre-action protocol;
(b) Whether it was reasonable for a party to raise, pursue or contest a particular allegation or issue;
(c) The manner in which a party has pursued or defended his case or a particular allegation or issue; and
(d) Whether a claimant who has succeeded in his claim, in whole or in part, exaggerated his claim." [10th Vol. 4th Edn.
(Para 17).] "
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:39:10NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63128 7 WPS-10811-2004 (emphasis supplied)
11. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of M/s.
Tomorrowland Ltd vs. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited and A n r . , in SLP(C) No. 34338 of 2016, while lamenting upon the disturbing trend adopted by the litigants to cloak the impecuniousness of the judicial process, made a seminal observation in the following terms:
"57. It needs no emphasis that whosoever comes to the court claiming equity, must come with clean hands. The expression 'clean hands' connotes that the suitor or the defendant have not concealed material facts from the court and there is no attempt by them to secure illegitimate gains. Any contrary conduct must warrant turning down relief to such a party, owing to it not acting in good faith and beguiling the court with a view to secure undue gain. A court of law cannot be the abettor of inequity by siding with the party approaching it with unclean hands. This also brings to mind the oft-quoted legal maxim--he who seeks equity must do equity."
(emphasis supplied)
12. In view of the above decisions, if conduct of the petitioner is taken note of, it would reveal that despite the fact that machinery was set in motion on application moved by Shri Umesh Kumar Pandey, he has not been impleaded by petitioner in the present petition. The outcome of this would have affected or not affected is totally immaterial. There could not have been any presumption that Shri Umesh Kumar Pandey would not have contested the present petition. It is unfortunate that the petition neither contains any whisper of explanation regarding non-impleadment of Shri Umesh Kumar Pandey nor has any attempt been made in 21 years to amend the petition explaining abovesaid.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:39:10NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63128 8 WPS-10811-2004
13. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- which shall be deposited with the M.P. State Legal Services Authority within 15 days from today and an intimation of the same be reported to this Court.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE vc Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:39:10