Court No. - 24 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 3815 of 2010 Petitioner :- Mridulesh D/O Shri Mehi Lal Rao Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru It'S Secretary,Basic Education Petitioner Counsel :- Ajeet Kumar Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.
The instant writ petition has been filed in the Registry on Saturday (3.7.2010)
of this Court. A request has been made by Sri Ajeet Kumar, learned Counsel
for the petitioner yesterday i.e. 5.7.2010 for taking up the case today itself as
according to him, the petitioner has enclosed High School and Intermediate
marsheet as well as passing out certificate along with application form for
pursuing B.T.C. Training Course for the academic year 2010 but inspite of it,
her application has been rejected and as such, in order to verify the
submission so advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel was directed to produce the records. In compliance thereof,
the learned Standing Counsel has produced the relevant records.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that yesterday i.e. 5.7.2010, he had
wrongly mentioned that High School and Intermediate marksheets and
passing out certificates have been enclosed but infact High School marksheet
along with the passing out certificate and Graduation Certificate has been
enclosed with the requisite application. He submits that she has sent her
application through Registry vide Registry No. RLA6976 on 22.5.2010 and
the same has been received in the office of DIET, Barabanki, on which the
authority concerned on 22.5.2010 itself rejected the same.
In para-7 of the memo of the petition, the petitioner has vehemently stated
that she has enclosed Intermediate Marksheet and other documents but on
perusal of the records, which have been produced by the learned Standing
Counsel, it reflects that the petitioner has neither enclosed Intermediate
marksheet nor Intermediate passing out certificate but she has enclosed High
School marksheet, High School passing out Certificate, Graduation
Marksheet, proof of residence and Caste Certificate along with her application
for pursuing BTC Course-2010.
As it is incumbent upon the applicant to enclose all the documents along with
the application form which were required and in not doing so, the form has
rightly been rejected.
It is pertinent to mention here that 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 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) 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.
From what I have mentioned above, it is clear that the petitioner has filed this
writ petition with oblique motives and has not presented the correct facts just
to gain undue advantage. Such type of practice should always be
discouraged and is highly deprecated. They belong to the category of persons
who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice. This is
the case, where I thought to impose heavy cost so as to determine in indulging
such activities again but looking to the young age of the petitioner’s counsel, I
refrain myself from referring the matter to the Bar Council and imposing
cost. Therefore, I do not find any justification to entertain the petitioner’s
prayer.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.7.2010
Ajit/-