# Akbar Abbas Zaidi v. State of U.P. & Ors. 340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 339
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-23
- **Case number:** Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) No. 163 of 2024
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akbar-abbas-zaidi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-340-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-51635
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Ifran Chaudhary, Sri Gaurav
Tripathi

Public Interest Litigation - Abuse of
Process - Suppression of Material Facts -
Petitioner sought removal of alleged illegal
constructions and unauthorized occupation by
private respondents (Nos. 7, 8, 9) on land
(Khata No. 24, 2.2940 hectares, Village Kairana,
Shamli) declared as 'enemy property' under
Enemy Property Act, 1968, and decision on his
representation (02.11.2023). Petitioner, claiming
to be a social worker with no vested interest,
concealed
ongoing
litigation
with
private
respondents, including partnership deeds (2015,
2019), a pending suit (Original Suit No. 73 of
2019),
injunction
orders
(04.12.2021,
11.12.2023), and pending petitions (Article 227
Nos. 648/2024, 7848/2023). Non-disclosure
violated Chapter XXII, Rule 1(3-A) and Rule
1(3)(ii) of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,
mandating disclosure of petitioner's credentials
and related proceedings. Supreme Court rulings,
including St. of Uttaranchal Vs Balwant Singh
Chaufal (2010 AIR SCW 1029), Janata Dal Vs
H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305, and K.D.
Sharma Vs Steel Authority of India (2008) 12
SCC 481, emphasize that PILs filed with ulterior
motives or suppression of facts constitute abuse
of process, warranting dismissal with costs.
Petition dismissed as a gross misuse of process,
with Rs. 50,000/- cost imposed, to be deposited
with Registrar General within three weeks for
transfer to Tara Sansthan's old age home in
Prayagraj for welfare of underprivileged elderly.
Non-compliance to trigger recovery as land
revenue arrears. (Paras 6-35)

Case Law Cited:

## Text

3 All. Akbar Abbas Zaidi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
339
attach and the defendant would become a
bhumidhar thereof with non-trasferable
rights. This Court assumes that this finding
has been recorded because either it was
admitted or it was nobody's case that the
defendant or any member of his family had
land with them in excess of twelve and a
half acres together with the area of the suit
property. Now, to judge the validity of
these findings, Substantial Questions of
Law Nos.4 and 5 have been formulated.

64. Considering the submissions
advanced by the learned Counsel for the
defendant (respondent here), this Court is
of opinion that both those substantial
questions of law do not really arise in this
appeal because once the Lower Appellate
Court held that the suit property being land
governed by the Act of 1950 the Civil
Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit,
there was no occasion for the Lower
Appellate Court to have recorded findings
about the merits of the parties' case. It was
on account of the remarks of the Lower
Appellate Court on the merits of the
parties' case that the defendant would
become
the
bhumidhar
with
nontransferable
rights
vis-a-vis
the
suit
property under Section 156 read with
Section 165 of the Act of 1950 that
Substantial Questions of Law Nos.4 and 5
were formulated.

65. This Court, therefore, holds that
Substantial Questions of Law Nos.4 and 5
are not involved in the present appeal and
refrains from deciding the same.

66. The Lower Appellate Court has
dismissed the suit on merits while holding
that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to
try it. We have affirmed those conclusions
in answering Substantial Questions of Law
Nos.1 and 3.

67. The only order, in the opinion of
this Court, that could have been made by
the Lower Appellate Court, once it came to
the conclusion that the Civil Court had no
jurisdiction to try the suit, was a direction
to return the plaint. That is the order, which
we think that this Court ought to make,
because,
after
all,
what
the
Lower
Appellate Court and this Court have held,
is inherent lack of jurisdiction with the
Civil Court to try the suit.

68. In the result, this appeal succeeds
and is allowed in part. The impugned
decree passed by the Lower Appellate
Court shall stand set aside and substituted
by an order, under Order VII Rule 10 of the
Code, directing a return of the plaint to the
plaintiff for presentation to the Court of
competent jurisdiction. The Trial Court
shall carry out the aforesaid order and
 ensure return of the plaint within 15 days
of receipt of the lower court records.

69. Costs easy.

70. Let the lower court records
be sent down to the Trial Court concerned
through
the
learned
District
Judge,
Bulandshahr.

71. Let an order be drawn up
accordingly.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 339
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) No. 163 of
2024

Akbar Abbas Zaidi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Priyavrat Tripathi, Sri Ram Adhar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ifran Chaudhary, Sri Gaurav
Tripathi

Public Interest Litigation - Abuse of
Process - Suppression of Material Facts -
Petitioner sought removal of alleged illegal
constructions and unauthorized occupation by
private respondents (Nos. 7, 8, 9) on land
(Khata No. 24, 2.2940 hectares, Village Kairana,
Shamli) declared as 'enemy property' under
Enemy Property Act, 1968, and decision on his
representation (02.11.2023). Petitioner, claiming
to be a social worker with no vested interest,
concealed
ongoing
litigation
with
private
respondents, including partnership deeds (2015,
2019), a pending suit (Original Suit No. 73 of
2019),
injunction
orders
(04.12.2021,
11.12.2023), and pending petitions (Article 227
Nos. 648/2024, 7848/2023). Non-disclosure
violated Chapter XXII, Rule 1(3-A) and Rule
1(3)(ii) of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,
mandating disclosure of petitioner's credentials
and related proceedings. Supreme Court rulings,
including St. of Uttaranchal Vs Balwant Singh
Chaufal (2010 AIR SCW 1029), Janata Dal Vs
H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305, and K.D.
Sharma Vs Steel Authority of India (2008) 12
SCC 481, emphasize that PILs filed with ulterior
motives or suppression of facts constitute abuse
of process, warranting dismissal with costs.
Petition dismissed as a gross misuse of process,
with Rs. 50,000/- cost imposed, to be deposited
with Registrar General within three weeks for
transfer to Tara Sansthan's old age home in
Prayagraj for welfare of underprivileged elderly.
Non-compliance to trigger recovery as land
revenue arrears. (Paras 6-35)

Case Law Cited:

1. St. of Uttaranchal Vs Balwant Singh Chaufal,
2010 AIR SCW 1029 (Paras 9, 13)

2. Janata Dal Vs H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC
305 (Para 17)

3. Dr. B. Singh Vs U.O.I., (2004) 3 SCC 363
(Para 18)
4. Chandra Shashi Vs Anil Kumar Verma, (1995)
1 SCC 21 (Para 19)

5. Buddhi Kota Subbarai (Dr.) Vs K. Parasaran,
(1996) 5 SCC 530 (Para 20)

6. Arunima Baruah Vs U.O.I., (2007) 6 SCC 120
(Para 21)

7. Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs St. Bank of India,
(2007) 8 SCC 449 (Para 22)

8. K.D. Sharma Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd.,
(2008) 12 SCC 481 (Para 23)

9. Dalip Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114
(Para 24)

10. Amar Singh Vs U.O.I., (2011) 7 SCC 69
(Para 25)

11. Kishore Samrite Vs St. of U.P., 2012 (10)
SCALE 330 (Para 26)

12. ABCD Vs U.O.I., (2020) 2 SCC 52 (Para 27)

13. Dhananjay Sharma Vs St. of Har., (1995) 3
SCC 757 (Para 28)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,
J.)

1. Short counter affidavit filed by Shri
Gaurav Tripathi on behalf of respondent
Nos.7 and 8 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Shri
Gaurav
Tripathi
for
the
contestingrespondent Nos.7 and 8. Shri Irfan
Chaudhary has accepted notice on behalf of
respondent No.5-Nagar Palika Parishad.

3. This petition has been filed
purportedly in public interest by the
petitioner-Akbar Abbass Zaidi against nine
respondents, out of whom, respondent
3 All. Akbar Abbas Zaidi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
341
Nos.7, 8 and 9 are private respondents. The
prayer made in this petition is that
respondent
No.2-District
Magistrate,
Shamli be directed to remove illegal
constructions and unauthorized occupation
from the land covered by Khata No.24, area
2.2940 hectare, situated at Village Kairana
Under Hadud, Tehsil Kairana, District
Shamli, in view of the report submitted by
the
respondent-Authorities
dated
16.09.2023, terming the property as 'enemy
property'. The petitioner further seeks a
direction to the respondent-Authorities to
decide the petitioner's representation dated
02.11.2023 within stipulated period of time.

4. Although, it has not been
mentioned in the first relief as to who is in
unauthorized
occupation
of
the
said
property, from the pleadings contained in
the writ petition as well as from the
representation dated 02.11.2023 and other
identical representations annexed to the
petition, it is apparently clear that the
petitioner has termed the respondent Nos.7,
8 and 9 as land mafias in unauthorized
possession over the aforesaid property.

5. When the matter was taken up,
learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7
and 8, by referring to the short counter
affidavit,
contended
that
the
present
petition is a gross misuse and abuse of the
process of law as the same has been filed
by concealing various proceedings held
between the petitioners and the private
respondents.
This
Court,
accordingly,
proceeded to consider the record of petition
and the short counter affidavit.

6. As per the pleadings contained in
the petition, the petitioner claims to be a
permanent resident in House No.24,
Mohalla Kalalan, Tehsil Kairana, District
Shamli and states his aim to eradicate the
evils
persistent
in
the
society
and
irregularities committed by the Authorities.
He claims to be a social worker stating that
he has no vested interest in the property. It
is further stated that the property covered
by Khata No.24 was declared as 'enemy
property' under the order passed by the
Collector, Muzaffarnagar on 27.03.1974
under the provisions of Enemy Property
Act,1968 and is recorded as such in the
revenue records. Details of various Khasras
covered by Khata No.24 have been
mentioned in paragraph No.7 of the petition
and in paragraph Nos.7A, 7B, 7C and 7D
of the petition, meaning of the words
"Public Interest" with reference to certain
Authorities and dictionaries has been
sought to be explained.

7. The case of the petitioner is that
father of respondent Nos.7, 8 and 9 claimed
ownership over the land in dispute but his
claim was rejected by the Assistant
Collector, First Class, Muzaffarnagar on
09.11.1981, against which, an appeal was
filed before the Additional Commissioner,
Meeurt, Division, Meerut which was
allowed on 15.04.1982 accepting the claim
of respondent Nos. 7 to 9 over 1/5th
property of land in dispute. It is stated that
against order dated 15.04.1982, the father
of the said respondents filed Second Appeal
No.201 of 1982 before the Board of
Revenue, U.P., Allahabad which remanded
the matter to the Competent Authority on
20.04.1999, against which order, Writ B
No.21897 of 1997 has been filed before
this Court which is pending and, despite
that, Bhumafias of the Mohalla concerned
have started plotting work over the land
and several houses and shops have been
constructed thereon, as a result whereof,
public at large is suffering but the
authorities, despite submission of various
representations by the petitioner, are sitting
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
tight over the matter. Specific allegations of
making encroachments have been levelled
against respondent Nos.7 to 9 and, in pith
and substance, the reliefs claimed in the
writ petition are to the effect that the
persons in possession over the aforesaid
property, i.e. respondent Nos.7 to 9, be
removed therefrom.

8. On the other hand, Shri Gaurav
Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.7 and 8, by referring to the record of
short counter affidavit, submits that the
petitioner
has
deliberately
concealed
various proceedings held in between the
petitioner and private respondents and has
not approached this Court with clean hands.
He further submits that there is gross
violation of provisions of Chapter XXII,
Rule 1 (3-A) of the Allahabad High Court
Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Rules') as the petitioner has not disclosed
his credentials in the petition.

9. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, before referring to the amended
Rule incorporated in the High Court Rules
pursuant to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Uttranchal
vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others,
2010 AIR SCW 1029, it is necessary to
refer to the litigation in between the
petitioner and the private respondents, as
stands reflected from the documents
annexed to the short counter affidavit.

10. A partnership deed was executed
on 16.08.2015 (registered on 19.12.2015),
in which, the petitioner-Akbar Abbass Zaidi
was shown as one of the partners in relation
to business of Egg, Layer Farming etc. in
the name and style of M/S ROSY LAYERS
FARM, at Ramda Road, Kairana, Shamli.
Respondent No.7 (Shamsuddin) was one of
the witnesses to execution of the deed.
Another partnership deed was executed on
07.01.2019 (registered on 10.01.2019)
which shows that one of the partners
namely Mohd. Aashif retired from the
partnership
w.e.f.
07.01.2019
and
Shamsuddin
(respondent
No.5)
was
inducted as a partner to act alongwith the
remaining two partners. Third partnership
deed dated 07.01.2019 (registered on
10.01.2019) is also on record which
discloses names of five partners including
the
petitioner
and
respondent
No.7
alongwith other persons.

11. A plaint of Original Suit No.73 of
2019 (M/S Amirbano and others vs. Akbar
Abbas Zaidi and another) is on record
whereby the plaintiffs have claimed a
decree for declaring them as owners of
property covered by Khata No.647 and also
a
decree
for
permanent
prohibitory
injunction
based
upon
stipulations
contained in the aforesaid partnership
deeds. Apparently, the petitioner herein is
defendant No.1 in the said suit and has filed
his written statement therein. The record
further reveals that the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Kairana, Shamli passed an order
dated 04.12.2021 restraining the defendants
from interferring in the business being
carried out by the plaintiffs of the suit as
well as their possession over the property
while
allowing
injunction
application
(paper No.6-C). The defendants, including
the petitioner, filed Misc. Appeal No.10 of
2021 against the injunction order and the
same was dismissed by the District Judge,
Shamli
by
order
dated
11.12.2023
confirming injunction order. Another order
dated 19.04.2023 passed by the Additional
District Judge, Kairana, Shamli in the same
suit is on record which shows that the
petitioner alongwith co-defendant in the
same suit had challenged order dated
16.11.2021 passed by the Trial Court on an
3 All. Akbar Abbas Zaidi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
343
application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by means
of Civil Revision No.2 of 2022, however,
the same was also dismissed. It appears that
two petitions being Matter Under Article
227 Nos. 648 of 2024 (Akbar Abbas Zaidi
and another vs. M/S Ameer Bano and 5
others) and 7848 of 2023 (Akbar Abbas
Zaidi and another vs. M/S Ameer Bano and
5 others) at the instance of the petitioner
are pending before this Court arising out of
the
aforesaid
orders.
Certain
First
Information Reports lodged in between the
parties
raising
a
dispute
regarding
partnership business are also annexed to the
short counter affidavit.

12. From perusal of the aforesaid
documents, it is apparently clear that the
petitioner is in continuous litigation with
the
private
respondents,
especially
respondent No.7 and, as of now, there are
judicial orders passed against him and in
favour of respondent No.7 who is plaintiff
No.5 in Original Suit No.73 of 2019 and
was inducted as a partner in the partnership
business alongwith the petitioner. There is
absolutely no disclosure of any of the
aforesaid proceedings in the entire petition.
Apparently, the present petition in the
nature of Public Interest Litigation has been
prepared on 20.12.2023 and filed on
25.01.2024 i.e. immediately after the Misc.
Appeal filed by the petitioner against the
injunction order was dismissed by the
District Judge and even before the Matter
Under Article 227 No.648 of 2024, arising
out of the order of District Judge was filed
before this Court. Hence, it is clear that the
petitioner is guilty of supressing material
facts and proceedings from this Court and
deserves to be dealt with as per law settled
in this regard.

13. As regards the public interest
litigation, the Apex Court in State of
Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal
(supra)
placing
reliance
on
various
previous judicial pronouncements, in order
to ensure that Writ Jurisdication may not be
misused and abused by the unscruplous
litigants, issued various directions. It is
necessary to refer to the directions
contained in paragraph 198 of the judgment
as under:-

"198. In order to preserve the
purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has
become imperative to issue the following
directions:-

(1) The courts must encourage
genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively
discourage and curb the PIL filed for
extraneous considerations.

(2) Instead of every individual
judge devising his own procedure for
dealing with the public interest litigation, it
would be appropriate for each High Court
to properly formulate rules for encouraging
the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL
filed with oblique motives. Consequently,
we request that the High Courts who have
not yet framed the rules, should frame the
rules within three months. The Registrar
General of each High Court is directed to
ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by
the High Court is sent to the Secretary
General
of
this
court
immediately
thereafter.

(3) The courts should prima facie
verify the credentials of the petitioner
before entertaining a P.I.L.

(4) The court should be prima
facie satisfied regarding the correctness of
the
contents
of
the
petition
before
entertaining a PIL.
.

(5) The court should be fully
satisfied that substantial public interest is
involved before entertaining the petition.

(6) The court should ensure that
the petition which involves larger public
344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interest, gravity and urgency must be given
priority over other petitions.

(7) The courts before entertaining
the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed
at redressal of genuine public harm or
public injury. The court should also ensure
that there is no personal gain, private
motive or oblique motive behind filing the
public interest litigation.

(8) The court should also ensure
that the petitions filed by busybodies for
extraneous and ulterior motives must be
discouraged by imposing exemplary costs
or by adopting similar novel methods to
curb frivolous petitions and the petitions
filed for extraneous considerations. "

14. Our High Court, in furtherance of
the directions issued by the Apex Court,
incorporated amendment in Rule 1 of
Chapter XXII of the Rules and added subrule (3-A) in Rule 1, which reads as
follows:-

"(3-A) In addition to satisfying
the requirements of the other rules in this
chapter, the petitioner seeking to file a
Public Interest Litigation, should precisely
and specifically state, in the affidavit to be
sworn by him giving his credentials, the
public cause he is seeking to espouse; that
he has no personal or private interest in the
matter; that there is no authoritative
pronouncement by the Supreme Court or
High Court on the question raised; and that
the result of the litigation will not lead to
any undue gain to himself or anyone
associated with him, or any undue loss to
any person, body of persons or the State."

15. The newly incorporated Rule
clearly mandates that the petitioner seeking
to file Public Interest Litigation petition
should precisely and specifically disclose
his credentials and the public cause he is
seeking to espouse with clear mention that
he has no personal or private interest in the
matter.
Significantly,
requirements
incorporated under sub-rule (3-A) are "in
addition to specifying the requirements of
other Rules in the Chapter." Therefore, this
Court feels it appropriate to refer to subrule 3(ii) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII which
reads as follows:-

"3(ii). If there is any related
proceedings pending elsewhere, the full
details thereof shall be mentioned."

(emphasis supplied by Court).

16. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid
Rules/sub-rules makes it apparently clear
that, in case, the said requirements are not
fulfilled by the petitioner filing a petition in
the nature of a Public Interest Litigation,
the High Court would be obliged to deal
with such non-compliance as per the
judicial pronouncements made by the Apex
Court from time to time with regard to
abuse and misuse of process of law by
filing Public Interest Litigation petitions.

17. In Janata Dal vs. H.S.
Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305, the
Supreme Court, apart from making various
observations,
observed
in
paragraph
No.109 that only a person acting bonafide
and having sufficient interest in the
proceedings of Public Interest Litigation
will alone have a locus standi and can
approach the Court to wipe out the tears of
the poor and needy, suffering from
violation of their fundamental rights, but
not a person for personal gain or private
profit or political motive or any oblique
consideration. It further observed that
vexatious petition under the colour of PIL
brought before the Court for vindicating
any personal grievances, deserves rejection
at the threshold. (emphasis supplied by
Court)
3 All. Akbar Abbas Zaidi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
345

18. In Dr. B. Singh vs. Union of
India and others, (2004) 3 SCC 363, the
Supreme Court placed reliance on various
previous judgments on the issue as to how
genuine and ingenuine PIL petitions should
be dealt with by the Courts. It clearly laid
down that it would be desirable for the
courts to filter out the frivolous petitions
and dismiss them with cost so that the
message goes in the right direction that
petitions filed with oblique motive do not
have the approval of the Courts. It also
observed that when there is material to
show that a petition styled as a Public
Interest Litigation is nothing but a
camouflage to foster personal disputes or
vendatta to bring to terms a person, not of
ones liking, or gain publicity or a facade for
blackmail, said petition has to be thrown
out. (emphasis suppled by Court).

19. In Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil
Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 21, the
Apex Court has observed that to enable the
courts to ward off unjustified interference
in their working, those who indulge in
immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and
motivated
falsehoods
have
to
be
appropriately dealt with, without which it
would not be possible for any court to
administer justice in the true sense and to
the satisfaction of those who approach it in
the hope that truth would ultimately
prevail. People would have faith in courts
when they would find that "truth alone
triumphs" is an achievable aim there.

20. In Buddhi Kota Subbarai
(Dr.) Vs. K. Parasaran, (1996) 5 SCC
530), the Supreme Court has held that no
litigant has a right to unlimited drought on
the court time and public money in order to
get his affairs settled in the manner as he
wishes. Easy access to justice should not be
misused as a licence to file misconceived or
frivolous petitions.

21. In Arunima Baruah Vs. Union
of India (2007) 6 SCC 120, Supreme
Court held that it is trite law that to enable
the Court to refuse to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction when material
facts are suppressed. It was further held
that a person invoking the discretionary
jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed
to approach it with a pair of dirty hands.

22. In Prestige Lights Limited Vs.
State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449,
the Supreme Court observed that it is well
settled that a prerogative remedy is not a
matter
of
course.
In
exercising
extraordinary power, a Writ Court will
indeed bear 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,
the Court may dismiss the action without
adjudicating the matter. 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.
(emphasis supplied by Court)

23. In K.D Sharma Vs. Steel
Authority of India Limited and others,
(2008) 12 SCC 481, Supreme Court held
that no litigant can play "hide and seek"
with the courts or adopt "pick and choose"
and one should come with candid facts and
clean breast. Suppression or concealment
of material facts is forbidden to a litigant or
even as a technique of advocacy. In such
cases the Court is duty bound to discharge
rule nisi and such applicant is required to
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be dealt with for contempt of Court for
abusing the process of the court.
(emphasis supplied by Court)

24. Supreme Court in Dalip Singh
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
(2010) 2 SCC 114 came down heavily on
unscrupulous litigants and after noticing the
progressive decline in the values of life, it
observed as follows:

"For
many
centuries
Indian
society cherished two basic values of life
i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahimsa" (nonviolence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and
Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to
ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth
constituted an integral part of the justicedelivery system which was in vogue in the
pre-Independence era and the people used
to feel proud to tell truth in the courts
irrespective of the consequences. However,
post-Independence period has seen drastic
changes
in
our
value
system.
The
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."

..............................

"In the last 40 years, a new creed
of litigants has cropped up. Those who
belong to this creed do not have any respect
for truth. They shamelessly resort to
falsehood
and
unethical
means
for
achieving their goals. In order to meet the
challenge posed by this new creed of
litigants, the courts have, from time to time,
evolved new rules and it is now well
established 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."

25. In Amar Singh Vs. Union of
India (2011)7 SCC 69, Supreme Court
held that Courts have, over the centuries,
frowned upon litigants who, with intent to
deceive and mislead the courts, initiated
proceedings without full disclosure of facts.
Courts held that such litigants who come
with "unclean hands", are not entitled to be
heard on the merits of their case.

26. In Kishore Samrite Vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2012 (10) SCALE 330,
The Supreme Court held that the entire
journey of a Judge is to discern the truth
from
the
pleadings,
documents
and
arguments of the parties, as truth is the
basis
of
the
Justice
Delivery
System..............With the passage of time, it
has been realized that people used to feel
proud to tell the truth in the Courts,
irrespective of the consequences but that
practice no longer proves true, in all cases.
The Apex Court further observed that the
Court does not sit simply as an umpire in a
contest between two parties and declare at
the end of the combat as to who has won
and who has lost but it has a legal duty of
its own, independent of parties, to take
active role in the proceedings and reach at
the truth, which is the foundation of
administration of justice. Therefore, the
truth should become the ideal to inspire the
courts to pursue. This can be achieved by
statutorily mandating the Courts to become
active seekers of truth...... It is the bounden
duty of the Court to ensure that dishonesty
and any attempt to surpass the legal process
must be effectively curbed and the Court
must ensure that there is no wrongful,
unauthorized or unjust gain to anyone as a
result of abuse of the process of the Court.
3 All. Akbar Abbas Zaidi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
347
One way to curb this tendency is to impose
realistic or punitive costs.

27. In ABCD Vs. Union of India and
others, (2020) 2 SCC 52, Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter where material facts
had been concealed, while issuing notice to
the petitioner therein and while exercising
its suo-motu contempt power, observed that
making a false statement on oath is an
offence punishable under Section 181 of
the IPC while furnishing false information
with intent to cause public servant to use
his lawful power to the injury of another
person is punishable under Section 182 of
the IPC. These offences by virtue of
Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code can be
taken cognizance of by any court only upon
a proper complaint in writing as stated in
said Section.

28. In Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State
of Haryana and others (1995) 3 SCC 757,
it has been observed that filing of a false
affidavit was the basis for initiation of
action in contempt jurisdiction and the
concerned persons were punished.

29. In view of the aforesaid judicial
pronouncements, 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 falsi, i.e. suppression of truth is
equivalent to the expression of falsehood,
gets attracted in such cases including the
present one. (emphasis supplied by Court)

30. In view of the above discussion,
we are fully convinced that the instant
petition is a gross misuse and abuse of
process of law and deserves dismissal with
heavy cost so that it may set a deterrent
example to discard unscruplous persons
from invoking Writ Jurisdiction for their
vested interest under the camouflage of
PIL.

31. The instant PIL petition is
dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/-.

32. We may note that "Tara
Sansthan", a Government registered charity
organisation, conducts varous charitable
activities throughout India which include
running of eye hospitals for free check-ups
and treatment, old age homes, widow
monthly pension scheme, food donation
scheme etc. etc. One of such old age homes
is named as Rabindra Nath Gaur Anand
Old Age Home, located at 25/39, LIC
Colony, Tagore Town, Prayagraj (U.P.),
where many old people, either having no
family members or, though have family
members, but have been thrown out from
their homes, are passing last stages of their
lives
in
distress.
Such
organizations
including the Old Age Home, Prayagraj is
mainly dependant upon the donations made
by
the
general
public
or
some
organizations. Since the Public Interest
Litigation petitions are meant to wipe out
the tears of poor and needy, suffering from
violation of their fundamental rights, the
Court feels it appropriate that the cost
imposed upon the petitioner should also be
utilized for those who are in need of
money, i.e. to say that it must go for the
welfare of the society, particularly, those
who are under-privileged or downtrodden
for any reason.

33. Therefore, the petitioner is
directed to deposit the cost before the
Registrar General of this Court within
three weeks from the date of this
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment, failing which, the Registrar
General shall send a copy of this order
alongwith letter to the District Magistrate,
Shamli (respondent No.2) to issue a
recovery citation against the petitioner for
recovering the said sum as arrears of land
revenue within one month from the date of
receipt of copy of the instant order from the
Registrar General.

34. On receipt of aforesaid amount,
Registrar General of this Court shall credit
the same to the account of Tara Sansthan,
SBI Account No. 31840870750, IFSC Code
SBIN0011406, after due verification of the
particulars
of
the
said
account
in
consultation with the Head/ Incharge of the
said Sansthan. The amount, so remitted,
shall be used exclusively for the welfare of
the old-age people staying in Rabindra
Nath Gaur Anand Old Age Home, located
at 25/39, LIC Colony Tagore Town,
Prayagraj (U.P.). A copy of this order shall
also be served upon the Head/Incharge of
the said old age home for necessary
compliance of this order.

35. The Head/Incharge of said
Sansthan shall submit statement(s) of
account before Registrar General of this
Court disclosing the manner of utilization
of cost till the amount is spent for the above
welfare
purpose,
failing
which,
the
Head/Incharge of the said old age home
shall be answerable.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 348
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABABAD 10.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 3046 of 2023

Naimullah Sheik & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Khursheed Alam

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Mohd. Warish Khan

Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 2(a), 2(f),
2(q), 2(s), 12 & 20 - Constitution of
India,1950 - Article 227 - Maintenance for
Major Unmarried Daughters - - Petitioners
(father and stepmother) challenged trial court's
order
(30.05.2022)
granting
interim
maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to each
of three major daughters (aged 25, 22, 20)
under Section 12 of DV Act, and appellate
court's affirmation (08.12.2022). Daughters
alleged domestic violence (physical assault,
denial of education) by father and stepmother
after their mother's death. Petitioners contended
daughters, being major, were not entitled to
maintenance, were earning independently, and
application was instigated by maternal uncle.
Court held that DV Act provides a broader,
quicker remedy for women subjected to
domestic violence, including monetary relief
under
Section
20,
which
encompasses
maintenance under Section 20(1)(d) in addition
to or under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or other laws.
Supreme Court and High Court precedents
(Noor Saba Khatoon Vs Mohd. Quasim, (1997) 6
SCC 233; Jagdish Jugtawat Vs Manju Lata,
(2002) 5 SCC 422; Ajay Kumar Vs Lata @
Sharuti,
2019
Supreme
(SC)
612;
Menti
Trinadha Venkata Ramana Vs Menti Lakshmi,
2021 SCC Online AP 2860; Mustakim Vs St. of
U.P., 2015 (3) ADJ 693) confirm that major
unmarried daughters, Hindu or Muslim, can
claim maintenance under personal law or DV Act
if subjected to domestic violence in a domestic
relationship. Section 20(1) also recognizes
independent monetary relief for expenses/losses
due to domestic violence, irrespective of age or
dependency. No illegality found in impugned
orders; petition dismissed under Article 227.
(Paras
4-15)