1
Court No. 24
Writ Petition No. 2594 (MS) of 2010
Smt. Kanya Devi ... Petitioner
Versus
Special Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Pratapgarh and others ... Opposite parties
AND
Writ Petition No. 354 (MS) of 2010
Smt. Kanya Devi ... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ... Opposite parties
----------
Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.
Heard Mr Pankaj Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner
and Mr Sampurnand Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the
private respondents.
The dispute arose in the instant writ petition relates to
election of the petitioner for the post of Pradhan for Gram Sabha
Hathigawan, Kunda, District Pratapgarh which was held in the
year 2005. Several round of litigations has been filed between the
parties. Earlier, the petitioner has filed the writ petition which was
numbered as Writ Petition No. 1594 (MS) of 2009 and the said
writ petition was allowed. The operative portion of the order dated
30.3.2009 as under:-
“Considering the dictum laid down in Bhabhi vs.
Sheo Govind and others (supra), the writ petition is
allowed. A writ in the certiorari is issued quashing the
order of the S.D.O. Dated 16.10.2008 and the order
of revisional court dated 18.3.2009. The matter is
remitted to the S.D.O. to pass an order of re-counting
in accordance with law and thereafter decide the
issue on the basis of result secured in the re-counting
within a period of six months.”
In compliance of the order dated 30.3.2009, the Sub-
Divisional Officer passed the order on 12.8.2009. Being aggrieved,
2
the order dated 12.8.2009, the petitioner preferred a revision No.
2 of 2009 before the In-charge District Judge, Pratapgarh and in
the revision, the Revisional Authority passed an order dated
26.8.2009 quashing the order dated 12.8.2009 and remanding
the matter to the opposite party No.2 for fixing another date for
recounting of votes and deciding the matter, but he has not
passed any order in respect of application dated 12.8.2009 filed
by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.8.2009,
he filed a writ petition in this Court which was numbered as Writ
Petition No. 6703 (MS) of 2009 and the said writ petition is still
pending, but in the meantime, vide order dated 1.12.2009, the
opposite party No.2 in an illegal and arbitrary manner directed for
recounting of votes without disposing of the election petition filed
by Babuna. Subsequently, it was dismissed as infructuous.
Therefore, the order dated 1.12.2009 attains finality.
During pendency of the writ petition No. 6703 (MS) of 2009,
the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the order for recounting of votes
on 8.12.2009 which was stayed by the District Judge, Pratapgarh
vide order dated 10.12.2009 in Revision No. 3 of 2009. Thereafter,
the said revision was dismissed vide order dated 22.3.2010, which
is being impugned in the instant writ petition. Though the order
dated 1.12.2009 attains finality, yet the petitioner has not
challenged the said order in Revision No. 3 of 2009. In spite of
repeated objections from the opposite parties, learned Counsel for
the petitioner submits that after dismissal of the writ petition, he
preferred two revisions which were numbered as Revision No.2 of
2009 and No.3 of 2009 assailing the orders dated 1.12.2009 and
8.12.2009 respectively.
On perusal of the orders impugned, it revealed that the
petitioner has only assailed the order dated 8.12.2009, but he has
not challenged the order dated 1.12.2009 at any relevant time,
though it attains finality. Therefore, the petitioner has not come to
the Court with clean hands.
In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India : (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
3
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. The Apex Court Court referred to the judgment
of Scrutton, LJ. in R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners,
and observed:
“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.”
In Welcome Hotel and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
and Ors. etc. AIR 1983 SC 1015, the Apex Court has 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.
In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and
Ors., the Apex Court has held that 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 and
it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court
must come with clean hands and 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. The same rule was reiterated in G.
Jayshree and Ors. v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Ors.: (2009)
4
3 SCC 141.
In a recent decision of Dalip Singh Versus State of Uttar
Pradesh and others [(2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 114],
the Apex Court has held that the making of patently false
statement on oath by the appellant tenure-holders is amazing.
The appellants efforts to mislead the authorities and the courts
got transmitted through three generations and the conduct of the
appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and the Supreme
Court cannot, but treated as reprehensible.
In view of what has been stated above, the petitioner has
not come to the Court with clean hands and suppressed the
material facts. Accordingly, I would like to dismiss both the writ
petitions with Rs.10,000/- costs, which shall be payable by the
petitioner/Kanya Devi within a period of one month failing which
the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
Accordingly, both writ petitions are dismissed.
Dt.6.7.2010
Lakshman/