'Litigants Going To Any Extent To Mislead Court': Allahabad HC Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On Govt Teacher For Filing PIL Suppressing Material Facts

Observing that nowadays litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court, the Allahabad High Court recently imposed a ₹1 lakh cost on a Government Teacher who filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea by suppressing material facts.

The bench of the then Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir further observed that in the post-Independence period, 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. 

"...one of the two cherished basic values by Indian society for centuries is 'Satya' (truth) and the same has been put under the carpet by the petitioner. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice delivery system in the pre- Independence era, however, the post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system...In the last 40 years, the values have gone down and now litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court. They have no respect for the truth," the bench observed as it dismissed a PIL plea by imposing a special cost on the petitioner.

The Case before the Court

Essentially, Kushwaha Mahasabha and another/petitioner no. 2 had moved the High Court seeking a direction to the District Magistrate, Bareilly to take necessary action for removing unauthorized constructions and obstructions raised by the private respondents over pieces of land, which were acquired for the construction of a bye-pass road.

It was also prayed that respondent authorities to recover the public money amount wrongly received by respondent Anupama in the form of compensation and to initiate penal action against her for playing fraud with the authorities in the interest of justice.

After the filing of the PIL plea, a Counter affidavit was filed by the private respondents stating that petitioner no. 2 is a history-sheeter and is working as Assistant Teacher under the Basic Education Board.

Importantly, it was also mentioned in the counter affidavit that certain FIRs under IPC had been filed by Respondent no. 5, his wife, and his domestic help against petitioner no. 2. The details of several other cases pending against petitioner no. 2 was also submitted by the respondents.

In the instructions received by counsel for the State, though nothing was mentioned about the credentials of petitioner No. 2 or that he is a Government employee, however, it was submitted that there was no double payment of compensation to the private respondent (as alleged in the PIL plea).

As regards the encroachments alleged in the PIL Plea, the State submitted that a Committee was constituted to look into that aspect and it was found that there was no encroachment.

Taking into account the counter affidavit and the stand of the State, the bench observed that petitioner no. 2 deliberately concealed the factum of him being a Government employee working as an Assistant Teacher under the Basic Education Board.

The Court also noted that he had further concealed the factum of various criminal cases registered by him/against him against/by the private respondents.

Consequently, finding it to be a case of material concealment of fact, the Court dismissed the plea as it observed thus:

"Now it is well settled 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. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim supressio veri, expression faisi, i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted."

Accordingly, the PIL plea was dismissed with a cost of ₹ 1,00,000/- to be deposited by petitioner No. 2 with the District Legal Services Authority, Bareilly within one month. 

The Court further directed that on failure, the Basic Education Officer, Bareilly shall be entitled to recover the amount from the salary of petitioner No. 2 in five installments of ₹ 20,000/-. 

Importantly before parting with the case, the Court gave the liberty to the Basic Education Board to take appropriate action against petitioner No. 2 for misconduct and violation of service Rules as he is also claiming himself to be the President of the petitioner No. 1.

Appearances

For petitioners - Advocate Gulab Chandra 

For Respondents - Additional Chief Standing Counsel A.K. Goyal, Advocates Siddhartha Srivastava

Case title - Kushwaha Mahasabha and another vs. State of U.P. and others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1969 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 62

Click Here To Read/Download Order