AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Instructions filed today in Court by the State are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner has made the following main prayers:-
"a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 25.07.2025 passed by Principal Secretary, Awas Evam Shahri Niyojan, U.P., Lucknow, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.
b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding thereby directing the opposite parties, specially opposite party no.5 to stop the illegal construction of petitioner's land (Nazool land), during pendency of the present writ petition, in the interest of justice.
c. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding thereby directing the opp. party no.2 to consider and decide the representation dated 22.08.2026 with a speaking and reasoned order, contained as Annexure No.6 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice."
A preliminary objection has been raised regarding the suppression of material facts by the petitioner. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner was arrayed as a respondent No.7 in another writ petition, bearing Writ Petition No.26481 (MB) of 2021 in re: Smt. Mamta Mishra and others vs. State of U.P. and others, concerning the same subject matter. However, the petitioner has neither disclosed the particulars of the said writ petition nor brought the order passed therein to the notice of this Court. The present writ petition has, thus, been filed without disclosing material facts having a direct bearing on the controversy involved.
The law is well settled that a person invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is under an obligation to make a full and fair disclosure of all material facts. A litigant seeking equitable and discretionary relief must approach the Court with clean hands and must not suppress material facts, make misleading statements, or furnish incorrect information. Suppression of material facts, particularly those relating to proceedings concerning the same subject matter, disentitles a litigant from claiming relief under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.
In The Asiatic Engineering Company vs. Achhru Ram and others, reported in 1951 SCC OnLine All 60, a Full Bench of this Court emphasized the necessity of full and truthful disclosure by a party invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relevant observations are delineated below:-
"In our opinion, the salutary principle laid down in the cases quoted above should appropriately be applied by courts in our country when parties seek the aid of the extraordinary powders granted to the court under Article 226 of the Constitution. A person obtaining an ex parte order or a rule nisi by means of a petition for exercise of the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution must come with clean hands, must not suppress any relevant facts from the court, must refrain from making misleading statements and from giving incorrect information to the court. Courts, for their own protection, should insist that persons invoking these extraordinary powers should not attempt, in any manner, to misuse this valuable right by obtaining ex parte orders by suppression, misrepresentation or mis-statement of facts. Applying this principle to the present case, we feel that, in this case, the petitioner company has disentitled itself to ask for a writ of prohibition by material suppressions, misrepresentations and misleading statements which have been found by us above. Two different proceedings were pending. One set of proceedings were initiated against the petitioner company itself by the notice, dated the 3rd of January, 1950. Suppressions and mis-statements about the residence of the shareholders and the directors, the places of business of the petitioner company and about the numerical majority of the Hindu shareholders were clearly directed to give an impression to the court that the petitioner company could not possibly be held to be an evacuee. The allegations of personal interest and mala fides against the Deputy Custodian (Judicial) were made without any foundation whatsoever for the purpose of inducing the court to issue a writ of prohibition on the argument that a judicial officer acting mala fide or having a personal interest in the dispute, has not jurisdiction to deal with the proceedings before him. The second set of proceedings were against the shareholders and, in these proceedings also, the Custodian contended that steps could be taken against the property of the company because some of the shareholders had become evacuees. Misrepresentations about the residence of the shareholders was also made for the purpose of meeting this contention. Obviously this is a clear case where, on the principles enunciated by us, the petitioner company, which actually obtained a rule nisi from a Bench of this Court, should be sent out of court without hearing on merits. The only grounds for challenging the jurisdiction of the Custodian taken on behalf of the petitioner company, which may be said to raise the question of patent lack of jurisdiction, are those relating to the contention that the Evacuee Property Act is itself ultra vires of the legislature, as it contravenes the provisions of Articles 14 and 19(f) of the Constitution. These points shall be dealt with by us later."
In the present case, the petitioner has failed to disclose the earlier writ proceedings concerning the same subject matter. The said omission is material, as the outcome of those proceedings may have a direct bearing on the controversy raised in the present writ petition. The petitioner cannot seek the discretionary relief of this Court while withholding material information concerning the very subject matter of the dispute.
In view of the aforesaid facts and the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to approach the Court with clean hands. The suppression of material facts disentitles the petitioner from seeking the discretionary relief available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, this Court does not find any justification to entertain the present writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts.