'Pollutes Stream Of Justice': J&K High Court Imposes 50K Cost On Petitioner For Suppressing Material Facts

Rebuking the petitioner for their mischief by suppressing material facts in order to seek an interim relief in their favor Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal emphasised,

“.. 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 jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to place all the facts before the Court without any suppression of material fact which has a direct bearing on the merits of the case”

The petitioners, Satpal Sharma, Hardev Singh, and Ishan Sharma, had approached the High Court seeking a writ to restrain the Jammu Development Authority (JDA) from demolishing structures and seizing their land, situated at Channi Rama, Jammu. They claimed ownership based on prior civil court decrees and sale deeds.

Despite the Municipal Corporation approving construction for one of the petitioners, the JDA had refused to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC), prompting the petitioners to file this writ petition.

The petitioners had argued that the JDA was unlawfully attempting to dispossess them without following due process, violating their fundamental right to property. They had further alleged that the JDA's demolition drive was conducted without notice and in violation of the law, hence demanding protection and a stay on further actions. On the strength of these pleadings the court had earlier passed a status quo with regard to the land in question.

Contesting the petition the JDA contended that the petitioners had not approached the court with clean hands, suppressing key facts. They pointed out that the petitioners had already admitted in prior criminal proceedings that the demolition took place on September 30, 2018, contradicting the petition's claim that the demolition was merely anticipated.

The JDA also highlighted that the petitioners had deliberately concealed the dates of the interim court orders in an attempt to mislead the court and obtain relief under false pretenses.

Adjudicating upon the matter Justice Nargal meticulously examined the sequence of events and found glaring contradictions in the petitioners' submissions. The court noted that the petitioners had admitted in other proceedings, including applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., that the demolition had already occurred before they filed the instant writ petition.

“Despite the admission of the said fact, the petitioners chose to file the instant petition on 01.10.2018, wherein it was projected that the demolition drive is yet to be carried out by the respondents and by sheer misrepresentation of the facts, this court was swayed away to pass interim protection in favour of the petitioners whereby, this court vide order dated 01.10.2018 has protected the status of the land in question”, the court remarked.

The court added,

“.. it is amply clear that the petitioners have been suppressing material facts from time to time, according to their own convenience to mislead this Court in two separate petitions by taking contradictory stands and to get a favourable order which falls within the realm of playing fraud with this Court”.

Observing that the petitioners' conduct amounted to "playing fraud" on the court by deliberately concealing the truth and taking contradictory stands in different legal proceedings Justice Nargal emphasized that the petitioners had a duty to approach the court with clean hands, and any attempt to suppress or twist facts to secure relief would be dealt with severely.

Expounding on the duties of a party invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution Justice Nargal emphasised his obligation to disclose all relevant material facts, as the foundation of writ jurisdiction rests on the presentation of truthful, complete, and accurate information.

“.. if a person does not disclose all the facts and is guilty of misleading the court, then the Court without adjudicating or touching upon the merits of the case can dismiss the petition”, the court underlined.

Citing a series of authoritative judgments from the Supreme Court, the court held that petitioners who abuse the judicial process by suppressing facts are not entitled to any discretionary relief. It thus dismissed the petition, vacated the interim order, and imposed costs of ₹50,000 to be deposited in the Advocates' Welfare Fund within two weeks.

The court also closed contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioners, further admonishing them for their attempt to misuse the judicial process.

“.. the order (supra) which has been obtained by the petitioners by way of fraud and misrepresentation cannot be implemented in the aforesaid backdrop and filing of the instant contempt petition was aggravation of the petitioners conduct to mislead this Court”, the court concluded.

Case Title: Satpal Sharma Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 267

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment