Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kanchan Khare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1586
1 WP-41522-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 15 th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 41522 of 2024
SMT. KANCHAN KHARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) To quash the impugned orders dated 15/07/2024 &25/11/2024 (Ann P/11
& P/12), passed by respondent no.6 and 5 and further any consequential action
taken against the petitioner in view of Annexure P/11 & P/12 be also quashed,
declaring the same to be illegal and void ab-initio.
(ii) To direct respondent no. 5 to implement selection dated11/03/2024 (Ann
P/2) and final selection dated 12/7/2024(Ann P/10) and petitioner be permitted
to join in work as warden in Netaji Subhashchandra Bose Hostel Badgaon,
District Katni, M.P.
(iii) To call for the entire record related with scrutiny of candidatures and
appointment arising out of order dated15/7/2024 & 25/11/2024, Annexure
P/11 & P/12.
(iv) Any other order/orders, directions which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and
proper may kindly be granted to the petitioner.”
2. The sole ground which has been raised by the petitioner is non-supply of
charge sheet to the petitioner by the authorities when the entire disciplinary
proceedings are completed.
3. On the statement made by the petitioner counsel on the previous date this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 16-01-2025
6:24:35 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1586
2 WP-41522-2024
Court directed the State counsel to seek instructions in the matter and to place on
affidavit of the District Education Officer that whether the charge sheet was served
to the petitioner or not.
4. On instructions counsel for the State has produced an affidavit. It is pointed
out the manner in which the charge sheet was served to the petitioner. Secondly, it
is pointed out that the petitioner himself has challenged the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against him by filing an appeal, which is brought on record
as Document-D, which is pending consideration.
5. The aforesaid fact does not find place in the memo of the petition. It is a
glaring suppression of fact by the petitioner. On one hand he is filing the appeal to
challenge the initiation of departmental inquiry against him before the appellate
authority and on the other hand he has filed this petition challenging the action of
the respondents in initiating a disciplinary proceedings on the ground that charge
sheet has not supplied to him supressing the factum of filing an appeal.
6. The law with respect to suppression of fact as well as the petitioner not
approaching the Court with clean hands is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
large number of cases. In this context, reference may be made to a recent judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kusha Duruka vs State of Odisha
reported in (2024) 4 SCC 432 wherein it is held as follows :
3. In K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481 it was observed by this Court
:
“39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs.
[R. v. General Commissioners for the Purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the
District of Kensington, ex p Princess Edmond De Polignac, (1917) 1 KB 486)
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 toSignature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 16-01-2025
6:24:35 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15863 WP-41522-2024
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.”
4. In Dalip Singh vs State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114, this Court noticed the
progressive decline in the values of life and the conduct of the new creed of
litigants, who are far away from truth. It was observed as under :
“1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two 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.
5. In Moti Lal Songara v. Prem Prakash, (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 respondent-
accused 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. Anyone who takes recourse to method of suppression in a court of
law, is, in actuality, playing fraud upon the court, and the maxim suppressio
veri, expressio falsi i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression
of falsehood, gets attracted. We are compelled to say so as there has been a
calculated concealment of the fact before the Revisional Court. It can be stated
with certitude that the respondent-accused 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 factSignature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 16-01-2025
6:24:35 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15864 WP-41522-2024
before a court of law to gain advantage, the said order cannot be allowed to
stand.
…
7. In a recent matter, this Court again came across a litigant who had tried to
overreach the Court by concealing material facts in Saumya Chaurasia v.
Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 6 SCC 401. It was a case where the appellant
before this Court had challenged the order passed by High Court of
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Miscellaneous Crl. Case No. 1258 of 2023
rejecting his bail application. He was accused of committing various crimes
under the Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act,
2002. His bail application was rejected by the High Court on 23-6-2023
[Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine Chh
1907] . In the pleadings before this Court, it was mentioned that the High
Court had committed gross error in not considering the charge-sheet dated 8-6-
2023 and the cognizance order dated 16-6-2023, which clearly suggested that
there was an error apparent on the fact of it. The fact which was available on
record was that an order in the bail application was reserved by the High Court
on 17-4-2023 [Saumya Chaurasia v. Enforcement Directorate, 2023 SCC
OnLine Chh 5838] and pronounced on 23-6-2023 [Saumya Chaurasia v.
Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 1907] . Having some
suspicion, this Court directed the appellant to file an affidavit to clarify the
aforesaid position. There was no specific reply given to the aforesaid query to
the Court. Rather vague statements were made. Considering the facts
available, this Court observed that there was a bold attempt by and on behalf of
the appellant therein to misrepresent the facts for challenging the order
[Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine Chh
1907] impugned therein, regarding the conduct of the parties and the counsel,
this Court made the following observations : (Saumya Chaurasia v.
Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 6 SCC 401)“13.It cannot be gainsaid that every party approaching the court seeking justice
is expected to make full and correct disclosure of material facts and that every
advocate being an officer of the court, though appearing for a particular party,
is expected to assist the court fairly in carrying out its function to administer
the justice. It hardly needs to be emphasised that a very high standard of
professionalism and legal acumen is expected from the advocates particularly
designated senior advocates appearing in the highest court of the country so
that their professionalism may be followed and emulated by the advocates
practising in the High Courts and the District Courts. Though it is true that the
advocates would settle the pleadings and argue in the courts on instructions
given by their clients, however their duty to diligently verify the facts from the
record of the case, using their legal acumen for which they are engaged,
cannot be obliviated.”
Finally, this Court dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-.”
7. 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:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 16-01-2025
6:24:35 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1586
5 WP-41522-2024
“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 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 legal system also. As per
settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 16-01-2025
6:24:35 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1586
6 WP-41522-2024
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.”
8. 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 16-01-2025
6:24:35 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1586
7 WP-41522-2024
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.”
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 16-01-2025
6:24:35 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1586
8 WP-41522-2024
must suffer the consequence thereof.”
9. Counsel appearing for the petitioner when confronted with the aforesaid,
has prayed for withdrawal of the petition.
10. The fact remains that relying upon the statement and the submissions made
in the memo of petition, this Court has instructed the State counsel to file an
affidavit of the District Education Officer to the effect.
11. When this glaring suppression of fact was brought to the notice of this
Court, prayer for withdrawal of the petition is made. Such tactics is not
permissible. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Kusha Duruka (supra) permission to withdraw the writ petition simpliciter is
rejected.
12. Under these circumstances, this Court is inclined to impose a cost of
Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) on the petitioner for not approaching this Court
with clean hands, 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) to be deposited by the petitioner within
a period of 07 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
13. If the cost amount is deposited the petition is permitted to be withdrawn.
Registry to report compliance.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
L.Raj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 16-01-2025
6:24:35 PM
[ad_1]
Source link