Madhya Pradesh High Court
Baburam Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10450
1 WP-7019-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 5 th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7019 of 2025
BABURAM YADAV AND ANOTHER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri V.C. Dwivedi - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi - Government Advocate for respondents Nos.1 to 3/State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05.11.2024
passed by respondent No.3 whereby the charge of the post of Samiti
Prabandak Leelatola and Karpa has been taken away from the petitioners and
handed over to respondent No.4.
2. When the matter was taken up on 04.03.2025, counsel appearing for
petitioners submitted that in pursuance to the order dated 05.11.2024 charge
is not taken away from petitioners till date. They are still in possession of
charge. His statement was placed on record and State counsel was directed to
verify the aforesaid statement. The matter was directed to be listed today.
3. When the matter is taken up for consideration today, counsel
appearing for petitioners as well as State submit that respondent No.4 is
working on the post of Samiti Prabandak Leelatola and Karpa and as on date,
the documents produced by the State counsel demonstrate that all the
proceedings with respect to disbursement of the salary of the employees are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Signing time: 3/6/2025
4:27:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10450
2 WP-7019-2025
being made under the signatures of respondent No.4.
4. There is nothing on record placed by petitioners to demonstrate that
they are still working on the post of Samiti Prabandak in the aforesaid
society. Yesterday, when counsel for petitioners made a statement before this
Court, he was warned that in case if statement is not found to be correct, then
consequences will follow. Despite the same, he is decided to stick to his
statement and therefore, this Court has directed the State counsel to verify
the aforesaid statement. However, from verification and on submissions of
State counsel, the statement made before this Court was found to be
incorrect.
5. Counsel for petitioners himself has argued before this Court that
respondent No.4 is working on the post of Samiti Prabandak Leelatola and
Karpa. This goes to show that the order passed by the authority dated
05.11.2024 was already complied with.
6. State counsel further pointed out that on 05.11.2024 the charge was
already taken and respondent No.4 has resumed his duties as Samiti
Prabandak Leelatola and Karpa.
7. There is no averment made in the entire writ petition with respect to
the same. It is a petition filed suppressing the material information from the
Court. When confronted with the aforesaid, counsel appearing for petitioners
prays for withdrawal of this petition. However, as he was already warned
yesterday not to make an incorrect statement before this Court, therefore, this
Court does not deem it appropriate to permit the petitioners to simply
withdraw this petition.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Signing time: 3/6/2025
4:27:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10450
3 WP-7019-2025
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arunima Baruah vs
Union of India reported in (2007) 6 SCC 120 has held that suppression must
be of ‘material’ fact. It was observed –
“10. On the one hand, judicial review is a basic feature
of the Constitution, on the other, it provides for a
discretionary remedy. Access to justice is a human right.
(See Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal [(2003)
6 SCC 230] and Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi v. State
of Gujarat [(2007) 4 SCC 241 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 260
: (2007) 5 Scale 357].) A person who has a grievance
against a State, a forum must be provided for redressal
thereof. (See Hatton v. United Kingdom [15 BHRC
259]. For reference see also Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union
of India [(2005) 4 SCC 649].)
11. The court’s jurisdiction to determine the lis between
the parties, therefore, may be viewed from the human
rights concept of access to justice. The same, however,
would not mean that the court will have no jurisdiction
to deny equitable relief when the complainant does not
approach the court with a pair of clean hands; but to
what extent such relief should be denied is the question.
12. It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse
to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression
must be of material fact. What would be a material fact,
suppression whereof would disentitle the appellant to
obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case. Material fact
would mean material for the purpose of determination
of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that
whether the same was material for grant or denial of the
relief. If the fact suppressed is not material for
determination of the lis between the parties, the court
may not refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.
It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary
jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach
it with a pair of dirty hands. But even if the said dirt is
removed and the hands become clean, whether the relief
would still be denied is the question.”
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 has held as under:
“1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Signing time: 3/6/2025
4:27:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:104504 WP-7019-2025
basic values of life i.e. “satya” (truth) and “ahimsa”
(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.
3. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das [AIR 1963 SC 1558] this
Court adverted to the aforesaid rule and revoked the
leave granted to the appellant by making the following
observations: (AIR p.1558) “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 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.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Signing time: 3/6/2025
4:27:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10450
5 WP-7019-2025
4. In Welcom Hotel v. State of A.P. [(1983) 4 SCC 575
: 1983 SCC (Cri) 872 : AIR 1983 SC 1015] the Court
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.
5. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka
[(1991) 3 SCC 261 : AIR 1991 SC 1726] the Court
denied relief to the appellant who had concealed the fact
that the award was not made by the Land Acquisition
Officer within the time specified in Section 11-A of the
Land Acquisition Act because of the stay order passed
by the High Court. While dismissing the special leave
petition, the Court observed: (SCC p. 263, para 2)
“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.”
6. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1
SCC 1] the Court held that where a preliminary decree
was obtained by withholding an important document
from the court, the party concerned deserves to be
thrown out at any stage of the litigation. 7. In Prestige
Lights Ltd. v. SBI [(2007) 8 SCC 449] it was 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 a petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court referred to
the judgment of Scrutton, L.J. in R. v. Kensington
Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 KB 486 (CA)] ,
and observed: (Prestige Lights Ltd. case [(2007) 8 SCC
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Signing time: 3/6/2025
4:27:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10450
6 WP-7019-2025
449] , SCC p. 462, para 35).
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.”
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri K. Jayaram and
others Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others decided on
08.12.2021 in Civil Appeal No.7550-7553 of 2021 has held as under:
“15. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited
and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 481, it was held thus:-
“34. 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. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are
issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of
utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ
court must come with clean hands, 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.
35. The underlying object has been succinctly stated by
Scrutton, L.J., in the leading case of R. v. Kensington
Income Tax Commrs.- (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257
: 116 LT 136 (CA) in the following words: (KB p. 514)
“…… 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–it says
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Signing time: 3/6/2025
4:27:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:104507 WP-7019-2025
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.”
(emphasis supplied)
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 the larger public
interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the
process of court by deceiving it.
37. In Kensington Income Tax Commrs.(supra),
Viscount Reading, C.J. observed: (KB pp. 495-96) ”
… Where an ex parte application has been made to his
Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes
to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the
application was not candid and did not fairly state the
facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the
Court as to the true facts, he 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 the
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Signing time: 3/6/2025
4:27:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10450
8 WP-7019-2025
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”
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 Commrs. (supra) 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.”
16. 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 subjec tmatter 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.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Signing time: 3/6/2025
4:27:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10450
9 WP-7019-2025
11. Therefore, it is clear that where the party has not approached the
Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts, then this Court
can refuse to entertain its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of
India and the equitable relief which can be granted to the petitioners can be
refused.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav
and others v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and others
reported in (2013) 11 SCC 531 has held as under:-
“44. It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material
for adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the
obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case
and leave the decision-making to the court. True, there
is a mention of the order dated 2-5-2003 in the order
dated 24-7-2006 passed by the JCC, but that is not
enough disclosure. The petitioners have not clearly
disclosed the facts and circumstances in which the order
dated 2-5-2003 was passed or that it has attained
finality.
45. We may only refer to two cases on this subject. In
Hari Narain v. Badri Das [AIR 1963 SC 1558] stress
was laid on litigants eschewing inaccurate, untrue or
misleading statements, otherwise leave granted to an
appellant may be revoked. It was observed as follows:
(AIR p. 1560, para 9)”
9. … It is of utmost importance that in making material
statements and setting forth grounds in applications for
special leave 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
would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by
making statements which are untrue and misleading.
That is why we have come to the conclusion that in the
present case, special leave granted to the appellant
ought to be revoked. Accordingly, special leave is
revoked and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant will
pay the costs of the respondent.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Signing time: 3/6/2025
4:27:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10450
10 WP-7019-2025
46. More recently, in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of
India [(2010) 14 SCC 38] the case law on the subject
was discussed. It was held 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. It was said: (SCC p. 51,
para 21) “21. The principle that a person who does not
come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be
heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case,
such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not
only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and
136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in
others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying
the principle is that every court is not only entitled but is
duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants
who do not have any respect for truth and who try to
pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or
by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which
have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in
the case.”
47. A mere reference to the order dated 2-5-2003, en
passant, in the order dated 24-7-2006 does not serve the
requirement of disclosure. It is not for the court to look
into every word of the pleadings, documents and
annexures to fish out a fact. It is for the litigant to come
upfront and clean with all material facts and then, on
the basis of the submissions made by the learned
counsel, leave it to the court to determine whether or
not a particular fact is relevant for arriving at a decision.
Unfortunately, the petitioners have not done this and
must suffer the consequence thereof.”
13. If aforesaid principle is applied to the facts and circumstances of
the present case, it is clear that there is material suppression on part of the
petitioners. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to impose a cost of
Rs.25,000/- each on the petitioners to be payable to M.P. High Court Bar
Association (SB A/c No.519302010000549, IFS CODE: UBIN0551937,
Union Bank of India, State Bar Council High Court Branch, Jabalpur) within
7 working today from today.
14. As the person approaching the Court with unclean hands is not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Signing time: 3/6/2025
4:27:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10450
11 WP-7019-2025
entitled to any relief in terms of the settled legal proposition, no relief can be
extended to the petitioners.
15. The petition is dismissed imposing the cost as aforesaid.
16. Let compliance of the order be placed before this Court for
perusal.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
vc
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Signing time: 3/6/2025
4:27:19 PM
[ad_1]
Source link