[ad_1]
Patna High Court – Orders
Gopal Narayan Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 21 April, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3631 of 2016
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15454 of 2015
======================================================
Sri Narayan Sharma son of Late Dwarika Shrma, village-Bhawani Tola, P.O.
Rampur Diara, P.S. Maner, District Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Vrsus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Shri R. K. Mahajan, Principal Secretary,
Education Department, Govt. Of
2. Sir Animesh Parashar, DistrictMagistrate Rohta at Sasaram
3. Smt. Seema Rani, Circle Officer Dehri District- Rohtas at Sasaram
4. Shri Ashok Singh, District Education Officer Rohtas at Sasaram
5. Gopal Narain Singh Son of Deo Narain Singh At,Po- Jamuhar, P.S- Dehri
District- Rohtas at Sasaram
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVIEW No. 33 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12299 of 2016
======================================================
Gopal Narayan Singh Son of Late Deo Narayan Singh Resident of Village and
P.O.-Jamuhar P.S.- Dehri-on Sone, District-Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Court of Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram.
3. The Court of Circle Officer, Dehri, Rohtas.
4. The Circle Officer, Dehri.
5. The High School, Jamuhar through the Headmaster, Jamuhar, P.S.-Dehri-on-
Sone, District-Rohtas.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 3631 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar Singh
For the Respondent no. 5 Mr.Y.V. Giri, SR. Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Mishra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Devashish Giri, Adv.
Mr. Aamir Hayat, Adv.
Mr. Azimuddin
For the State Mr. Anjaneya Singh, Adv.- AAG-13
(In CIVIL REVIEW No. 33 of 2025)
Patna High Court MJC No.3631 of 2016(11) dt.21-04-2025
2/16
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aamir Hayat, Adv.
Mr. Devashish Giri, Adv.
Mr. Shankar Kumar Choudhary
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Additional Advocate General 12
For the State Mr. Asif Kalim
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
11 21-04-2025
The present Civil Review No. 33 of 2025 is arising
out of order dated 17.12.2024 passed in CWJC No. 12299 of
2016.
2. Learned senior counsel Mr. Y.V. Giri, for the
review petitioner submitted that in para 6 of the order dated
17.12.2024 insofar as taking note of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
decision in the case of State of Odisha and Another Vs. Laxmi
Narayan Das (dead) thr. Lrs and Ors in Civil Appeal No.
8072 of 2010 decided on 12.07.2023 is not applicable to the
case in hand. He read out para 37 to the extent that the
aforementioned decision is not applicable. Para 37 reads as
under:-
“37. On the question, as to whether
after the withdrawal of a suit claiming the
same relief without having permission to
institute fresh one for the same relief, a writ
petition will be maintainable before the
Patna High Court MJC No.3631 of 2016(11) dt.21-04-2025
3/16Court, the guidance is available from the
judgment of this Court in M.J. Exporters
Private Limited v. Union of India and others
(2021) 13 SCC 543, wherein the principle of
constructive res judicata was applied. The
case concerns a litigant who sought to file a
fresh writ petition after withdrawal of the
earlier writ petition filed for the same relief
without permission to file fresh one. The
Court held that the principles contained in
Order 23, Rule 1 CPC are applicable even in
writ proceedings. Para 15 thereof is extracted
below:
“15. In these circumstances, we feel that
when this issue was raised and
abandoned in the first writ petition
which was dismissed as withdrawn, the
principles of constructive res judicata
which are laid down under Order 23
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, and which principles are
extendable to writ proceedings as well
as held by this in Sarguja Transport
Service v. STAT, (1987) 1 SCC 5.”
3. Whereas, we have taken note of general Principle
laid down in various decisions on the issue of litigant
approaching court of law with clean hands or not? In the very
same judgment at para 41 to 49. Para 41 to 49 related to
Patna High Court MJC No.3631 of 2016(11) dt.21-04-2025
4/16
suppression of factual aspects reads as under:-
41. In Abhyudya Sanstha Vs. Union of
India and others, (2011) 6 SCC 145, this Court,
while declining relief to the petitioners therein, who
did not approach the court with clean hands, opined
asunder:
“18. … In our view, the appellants
deserve to be non suited because they
have not approached the Court with clean
hands. The plea of inadvertent mistake
put forward by the learned senior counsel
for the appellants and their submission
that the Court may take lenient view and
order regularisation of the admissions
already made sounds attractive but does
not merit acceptance. Each of the
appellants consciously made a statement
that it had been granted recognition by
the NCTE, which necessarily implies that
recognition was granted in terms of
Section 14 of the Act read with
Regulations 7 and 8 of the 2007
Regulations. Those managing the affairs
of the appellants do not belong to the
category of innocent,
illiterate/uneducated persons, who are not
conversant with the relevant statutory
provisions and the court process. The
very fact that each of the appellants had
Patna High Court MJC No.3631 of 2016(11) dt.21-04-2025
5/16submitted LPASW No. 82/2019 Page 7
application in terms of Regulation 7 and
made itself available for inspection by the
team constituted by WRC, Bhopal shows
that they were fully aware of the fact that
they can get recognition only after
fulfilling the conditions specified in the
Act and the Regulations and that WRC,
Bhopal had not granted recognition to
them. Notwithstanding this, they made
bold statement that they had been granted
recognition by the competent authority
and thereby succeeded in persuading this
Court to entertain the special leave
petitions and pass interim orders. The
minimum, which can be said about the
appellants is that they have not
approached the Court with clean hands
and succeeded in polluting the stream of
justice by making patently false
statement. Therefore, they are not entitled
to relief under Article 136 of the
Constitution. This view finds support
from plethora of precedents.
42. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC
1558, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (Dead) by Lrs.
and another v. Govt. of Karnataka and another
(1991) 3 SCC 261 and plethora of other cases,
this Court denied relief to the
petitioner/appellant on the ground that he had
not approached the Court with clean hands. In
Hari Narain v. Badri Das (supra), the Court
Patna High Court MJC No.3631 of 2016(11) dt.21-04-2025
6/16revoked the leave granted to the appellant and
observed:
“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 andit LPASW No. 82/2019 Page 8
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.”
Patna High Court MJC No.3631 of 2016(11) dt.21-04-2025
7/16
43. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of
Karnataka‘s case (supra), this Court while noticing the
fact regarding the stay order passed by the High Court
which prevented passing of the award by the Land
Acquisition Officer within the prescribed time period
was concealed and in the aforesaid context, it observed
that :
“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.”
44. In Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
(2010) 2 SCC 114, this Court noticed the progressive
decline in the values of life and observed:
Patna High Court MJC No.3631 of 2016(11) dt.21-04-2025
8/16“1. For many centuries Indian society
cherished two basic values of life i.e.
“satya” (truth) and “ahinsa”
(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
Patna High Court MJC No.3631 of 2016(11) dt.21-04-2025
9/16
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.” (emphasis
supplied)
45. In Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem Prakash @
Pappu and another (2013) 9 SCC 199, this
Court, considering the issue regarding
concealment of facts before the Court, observed
that “court is not a laboratory where children
come to play”, and opined as under:
“19. The second limb of the submission is
whether in the obtaining factual matrix,
the order passed by the High Court
discharging the accused-respondent is
justified in law. We have clearly stated
that though the respondent was fully
aware about the fact that charges had
been framed against him by the learned
trial Judge, yet he did not bring the same
to the notice of the revisional court
hearing the revision against the order
taking cognizance. It is a clear case of
suppression. It was within the special
knowledge of the accused. Any one who
takes recourse to method of suppression
in a court of law, is, in actuality, playing
fraud with the court, and the maxim
supressio veri, expression faisi , i.e.,
suppression of the truth is equivalent to
the expression of falsehood, gets
attracted. We are compelled to say so as
Patna High Court MJC No.3631 of 2016(11) dt.21-04-2025
10/16there has been a calculated concealment
of the fact before the revisional court. It
can be stated with certitude that the
accused- respondent tried to gain
advantage by such factual suppression.
The fraudulent intention is writ large. In
fact, he has shown his courage of
ignorance and tried to play possum.
20. The High Court, as we have seen,
applied the principle “when infrastructure
collapses, the superstructure is bound to
collapse”. However, as the order has been
obtained by practising fraud and
suppressing material fact before a court
of law to gain advantage, the said order
cannot be allowed to stand.”
(emphasis supplied)
46. In a recent judgment, ABCD Vs. Union of India
and others (2020) 2 SCC 52, this Court in a matter
where material facts was concealed, while issuing
notice to the petitioner therein, exercising its suo-motu
contempt power, observed as under :
“15. Making a false statement on oath is
an offence punishable under Section 181
of the IPC while furnishing false
information with intent to cause public
servant to use his lawful power to the
injury of another person is punishable
under Section 182 of the IPC. These
offences by virtue of Section 195(1)(a)(i)
Patna High Court MJC No.3631 of 2016(11) dt.21-04-2025
11/16of the Code can be taken cognizance of
by any court only upon a proper
complaint in writing as stated in said
Section. In respect of matters coming
under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code, in
Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan
etc., (1987) 3 SCC 367 prosecution was
directed to be launched after primafacie
satisfaction was recorded by this Court.
47. It has also been laid down by this Court in Chandra
Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421 that a
person who makes an attempt to deceive the court,
interferes with the administration of justice and can be
held guilty of contempt of court. In this case, a husband
who had filed a fabricated document to oppose the
prayer of his wife seeking transfer of matrimonial
proceedings was found guilty of contempt of court and
was sentenced to two weeks imprisonment. It was
observed as under:
“1. The stream of administration of
justice has to remain unpolluted so that
purity of court’s atmosphere may give
vitality to all the organs of the State.
Polluters of judicial firmament are,
therefore, required to be well taken care
of to maintain the sublimity of court’s
environment; so also to enable it to
administer justice fairly and to the
satisfaction of all concerned.
2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud,
deflects the course of judicial
Patna High Court MJC No.3631 of 2016(11) dt.21-04-2025
12/16proceedings; or if anything is done with
oblique motive, the same interferes with
the administration of justice. Such
persons are required to be properly dealt
with, not only to punish them for the
wrong done, but also to deterothers from
indulging in similar acts which shake the
faith of people in the system of
administration of justice.
***
14. The legal position thus is that if the
publication be with intent to deceive the
court or one made with an intention to
defraud, the same would be contempt, as
it would interfere with administration of
justice. It would,in any case, tend to
interfere with the same. This would
definitely be so if a fabricated documents
is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the
case at hand the fabricated document was
apparently to deceive the court; the
intention to defraud is writ large. Anil
Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt.”
48. In K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India
Limited and others (2008) 12 SCC 481 it was observed:
“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
Patna High Court MJC No.3631 of 2016(11) dt.21-04-2025
13/16in 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.”
49. In Dhananjay Sharma vs. State of Haryana and
others (1995) 3 SCC 757, the filing of a false affidavit
was the basis for initiation of action in contempt
jurisdiction and the concerned persons were punished
for the same.”
4. On this count, the aforementioned contention of the
review petitioner that State of Odisha and Another Vs. Laxmi
Narayan Das (dead) thr. Lrs. And Ors. is not assigning and it is
hereby rejected.
5. Learned counsel for the review petitioner relied on
a decision reported in (2024) 7 SCC 370 in the case of
Patna High Court MJC No.3631 of 2016(11) dt.21-04-2025
14/16
Government of NCT of Delhi and Another Vs. BSK Realtors
LLP and Another (para 33 to 36) on the issue of suppression of
material facts that would not affect the merit. In the present case
suppression of material information which has been taken note
of in our order dated 17.12.2024 would not affect the merit of
the case. It is to be noted that in para 33 of BSK Realtors case,
suppression is in respect of another party filing litigation and not
by the same party. Therefore, the aforementioned citation do not
assist the review petitioner.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the review
petitioner tried to re-argue the CWJC No. 12299 of 2016 read
with CWJC No. 15454 of 2015 the same is not permissible in
the light of Section 114 of the CPC read with order 47 Rule 1
and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Sanjay
Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr. Reported in
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406 in which in paragraph-16 the
following principles have been laid down insofar as entertaining
the review petition:-
“16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:–
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if
there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the
record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is
Patna High Court MJC No.3631 of 2016(11) dt.21-04-2025
15/16final, and departure from that principle is justified only
when circumstances of a substantial and compelling
character make it necessary to do so.
(iii) An error which is not self- evident and
has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly
be said to be an error apparent on the face of record
justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order
47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous
decision to be “reheard and corrected.”
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose
and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner
cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions
which have already been addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be
such an error which, mere looking at the record should
strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of
reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be
two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent
decision/judgment of a co- ordinate or larger Bench by
itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.”
7. In the light of these facts and circumstances, review
petitioner has not made out a case so as to recall the order dated
Patna High Court MJC No.3631 of 2016(11) dt.21-04-2025
16/16
17.12.2024 passed in CWJC No. 12299 of 2016.
8. Accordingly the present Civil Rev. No. 33 of 2025
stands dismissed.
Re: MJC No. 2631 of 2016
Respondent No. 3 – Circle Officer, Dehri-on-Sone
District Rohtas at Sasaram is hereby directed to appear in-
person for non compliance of the order dated 30.06.2016 as the
present MJC contempt matter is pending consideration for the
last about nine years.
2. Relist this matter on 29.04.2025
3. If there is a non compliance, in that event he has to
pay Rs. 50,000/- from his pocket to the petitioner
4. Copy of this order shall be provided to State
Counsel – Mr. Anjaneya Singh.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
sushma/Ankit-
U
[ad_2]
Source link