# Bhaskar Rai v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 124
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-26
- **Case number:** PIL No. 767 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhaskar-rai-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48646
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Sri Ankit Gaur (State Law Officer), Sri Shubhash
Chandra Yadav

A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226PIL-petition filed claiming to be public interest
that the authorities concerned be directed to
investigate the issue regarding corruption in
allotment of fair price shop in favour of
respondent no.3-A criminal writ was already
filed regarding the same-It is well settled that a
litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of
justice 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.(Para 1
to 15)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
6 All. Bhaskar Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
125

## Text

124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Shiv Narayan are sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two
years and to pay a fine of Rupees Two
Thousand Only (Rs. 2,000/-) and if they
fail to pay the amount of fine, they shall
have to undergo imprisonment for a further
period of one month in lieu thereof.

(iii) For the offence under Sections
506 IPC, the accused-respondent no. 1 Shiv
Narayan son of Maheshwari Prasad and the
accused-respondent no. 2 Pradeep son of
Shiv Narayan are sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three
years and to pay a fine of Rupees Five
Thousand Only (Rs. 5,000/-) and if they
fail to pay the amount of fine, they shall
have to undergo imprisonment for a further
period of two months in lieu thereof.

(iv) All the aforesaid sentences will
run concurrently.

66. The accused-respondent no. 1 -
Shiv Narayan son of Maheshwari Prasad
and the accused-respondent no. 2 - Pradeep
son of Shiv Narayan are directed to
surrender before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hamirpur within a period of 15
days from the date of this order to serve out
the sentences awarded to them. In case they
do not surrender within the stipulated time,
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Hamirpur shall commit them to custody as
per law.

67. As the judgment and order dated
16-09-2008
passed
by
the
learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge
(Court No. 1), Hamirpur in Sessions Trial
No. 137 of 2005 under Sections 302/34,
504, 506 IPC, Police Station Rath, District
Hamirpur,
has
been
set
aside
in
Government Appeal No. 2239 of 2009,
there is no need to pass any order in
Criminal Revision No. 3459 of 2008 filed
against the same judgment and order as the
revision has become infructuous.

68. Let a certified copy of this
judgment and order be sent to the Court
concerned.
----------
(2022)06ILR A124
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

PIL No. 767 of 2022

Bhaskar Rai ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellnts:
Petitioner(In Person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ankit Gaur (State Law Officer), Sri Shubhash
Chandra Yadav

A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226PIL-petition filed claiming to be public interest
that the authorities concerned be directed to
investigate the issue regarding corruption in
allotment of fair price shop in favour of
respondent no.3-A criminal writ was already
filed regarding the same-It is well settled that a
litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of
justice 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.(Para 1
to 15)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
6 All. Bhaskar Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
125
1. Abhyudya Sanstha Vs U.O.I. (2011) 6 SCC
145

2. Hari Narain Vs Badri Das (1963) AIR SC 1558

3. G.Narayanswamy Reddy Vs Govt. of Karna.
(1991) 3 SCC 261

4. Dalip Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114

5. Moti lal Songara Vs Prem Prakash @ Pappu
& anr. (2013) 9 SCC 199

6. Amar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2011) 7 SCC 69

7. Kishore Samrite Vs St. of U. P. & ors. (2013)
2 SCC 398

8. ABCD Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2020) 2 SCC 52

9. Chandra Shashi Vs Anil Kumar Verma(1995)
1 SCC 421

10. K.D. Sharma Vs SAIL & ors. (2008) 12 SCC
481

11. Dhananjay Sharma Vs St. of Har. & ors.
(1995) 3 SCC 757

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.,
& Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. The present petition has been filed,
claiming to be in public interest, with a prayer
that the second cancelled fair price shop be
allotted to someone else and the authorities
concerned be directed to investigate the issue
regarding corruption in allotment of fair price
shop in favour of respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner, who appears in
person, claims that he is a Software Engineer,
based at Hyderabad, however, his parents and
other family members reside in village. He is
arguing
his
case
through
VC
from
Hyderabad.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel
for the respondents submitted that the
petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Writ -
Public Interest Litigation No.1 of 2022
raising the issue regarding the same fair
price shop. The same was dismissed by this
Court vide order dated January 18, 2022. It
was further submitted that there is one FIR
registered against the petitioner on the
complaint filed by respondent No.3 as Case
Crime No. 131 of 2021, under Sections
323, 504, 506 and 308 IPC at Police Station
Bardah, District Azamgarh in which even
charge sheet has been filed.

4. The submission is that the aforesaid
facts have not been disclosed in the present
petition.

5. He further submitted that the
petitioner has not disclosed his credentials
in terms of sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of
Chapter XXII of the High Court Rules.

6. The petitioner, who appeared in
person (through VC), in response to the
submissions so advanced, submitted that he
is not required to disclose the filing of
earlier writ petitions as the same do not
relate to the cause of action in question.
Regarding criminal case registered against
him on the complaint of respondent No.3,
he submitted that the said information was
also not required to be furnished as, in the
PIL, relief was claimed against the State
and not against respondent No.3.

7. After hearing the petitioner, who
appeared in person and learned counsel for
the respondents, in our opinion, the present
petition deserves to be dismissed on
account of concealment of material facts
from this Court and also for non-disclosure
of his credentials as required in terms of the
High Court Rules. Further, respondent
No.3 has been impleaded as a party against
whom there are specific allegations made
126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the petitioner. Even a prayer has also
been made for a direction to the authorities
to investigate the allegation of corruption in
allotment of fair price shop in favour of
respondent No.3 but, still, the fact that FIR
got registered by respondent No.3 against
the petitioner in which even a charge sheet
has also been filed, has not been disclosed
in
the
present
petition.
Further,
as
submitted by the petitioner, the fact that a
cross-case bearing Case Crime No.132 of
2021 was also registered against respondent
No.3 on a complaint made by him, has also
not been disclosed in the present petition.

8. The issue regarding approaching the
Court by concealing the facts has been
examined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on
number of occasions and it has been opined
that the same is polluting the stream of
justice.

9. In Abhyudya Sanstha Vs. Union
of India, (2011) 6 SCC 145, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court, while declining relief to
the petitioners therein, who did not
approach the court with clean hands,
opined as under :-

"18. ... In our view, the appellants
deserve to be non suited because they have
not approached the Court with clean hands.
The plea of inadvertent mistake put
forward by the learned senior counsel for
the appellants and their submission that the
Court may take lenient view and order
regularisation of the admissions already
made sounds attractive but does not merit
acceptance.
Each
of
the
appellants
consciously made a statement that it had
been granted recognition by the NCTE,
which necessarily implies that recognition
was granted in terms of Section 14 of the
Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the
2007 Regulations. Those managing the
affairs of the appellants do not belong to
the
category
of
innocent,
illiterate/uneducated persons, who are not
conversant with the relevant statutory
provisions and the court process. The very
fact that each of the appellants had
submitted LPASW No. 82/2019 Page 7
application in terms of Regulation 7 and
made itself available for inspection by the
team constituted by WRC, Bhopal shows
that they were fully aware of the fact that
they can get recognition only after fulfilling
the conditions specified in the Act and the
Regulations and that WRC, Bhopal had not
granted
recognition
to
them.
Notwithstanding this, they made bold
statement that they had been granted
recognition by the competent authority and
thereby succeeded in persuading this Court
to entertain the special leave petitions and
pass interim orders. The minimum, which
can be said about the appellants is that they
have not approached the Court with clean
hands and succeeded in polluting the
stream of justice by making patently false
statement. Therefore, they are not entitled
to relief under Article 136 of the
Constitution. This view finds support from
plethora of precedents.
19. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR
1963 SC 1558, G. Narayanaswamy
Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka (1991) 3
SCC 261 and large number of other cases,
this
Court
denied
relief
to
the
petitioner/appellant on the ground that he
had not approached the Court with clean
hands. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das
(supra), the Court revoked the leave
granted to the appellant and observed:

"It is of utmost importance that in
making material statements and setting
forth grounds in applications for special
leave made under Article 136 of the
Constitution, care must be taken not to
make any statements which are inaccurate,
6 All. Bhaskar Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
127
untrue or misleading. In dealing with
applications for special leave, the Court
naturally takes statements of fact and
grounds of fact contained in the petitions at
their face value and it LPASW No. 82/2019
Page 8 would be unfair to betray the
confidence of the Court by making
statements
which
are
untrue
and
misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the
appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that
the material statements made by the
appellant in his application for special
leave are inaccurate and misleading, and
the respondent is entitled to contend that
the appellant may have obtained special
leave from the Supreme Court on the
strength of what he characterises as
misrepresentations of facts contained in the
petition for special leave, the Supreme
Court may come to the conclusion that in
such a case special leave granted to the
appellant ought to be revoked."

20. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v.
Govt. of Karnataka's case (supra), the
Court while noticing the fact regarding the
stay order passed by the High Court which
prevented passing of the award by the Land
Acquisition Officer within the prescribed
time period was concealed and in the
aforesaid context, it observed that:

"2. ... Curiously enough, there is no
reference in the special leave petitions to
any of the stay orders and we came to know
about
these
orders
only
when
the
respondents appeared in response to the
notice and filed their counter- affidavit. In
our view, the said interim orders have a
direct bearing on the question raised and
the non-disclosure of the same certainly
amounts to suppression of material facts.
On this ground alone, the special leave
petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well
settled in law that the relief under Article
136 of the Constitution is discretionary and
a petitioner who approaches this Court for
such relief must come with frank and full
disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and
suppresses material facts, his application is
liable to be dismissed. We accordingly
dismiss the special leave petitions."

21. In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P.,
(2010) 2 SCC 114, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court noticed the progressive decline in the
values of life and observed:

"1. For many centuries Indian society
cherished two basic values of life i.e.
"satya"
(truth)
and
"ahinsa"
(non-
violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and
Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to
ingrain these values in their daily life.
Truth constituted an integral part of the
justice- delivery 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.

2. 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
128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any relief, interim or final." (emphasis
supplied)

10. In Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem
Prakash @ Pappu and another (2013) 9
SCC 199, Hon'ble the Supreme Court,
considering
the
issue
regarding
concealment of facts before the Court,
while observing that "court is not a
laboratory where children come to play",
opined as under:

 "19.
The
second
limb
of
the
submission is whether in the obtaining
factual matrix, the order passed by the High
Court discharging the accused-respondent
is justified in law. We have clearly stated
that though the respondent was fully aware
about the fact that charges had been framed
against him by the learned trial Judge, yet
he did not bring the same to the notice of
the revisional court hearing the revision
against the order taking cognizance. It is a
clear case of suppression. It was within the
special knowledge of the accused. Any one
who
takes
recourse
to
method
of
suppression in a court of law, is, in
actuality, playing fraud with the court, and
the maxim supressio veri, expression faisi ,
i.e., suppression of the truth is equivalent to
the expression of falsehood, gets attracted.
We are compelled to say so as there has
been a calculated concealment of the fact
before the revisional court. It can be stated
with certitude that the accused- respondent
tried to gain advantage by such factual
suppression. The fraudulent intention is
writ large. In fact, he has shown his
courage of ignorance and tried to play
possum.
20. The High Court, as we have seen,
applied the principle "when infrastructure
collapses, the superstructure is bound to
collapse". However, as the order has been
obtained
by
practising
fraud
and
suppressing material fact before a court of
law to gain advantage, the said order
cannot be allowed to stand." (emphasis
supplied)

11. Similar view has been expressed
in Amar Singh v. Union of India and
others, (2011)7 SCC 69 and Kishore
Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others, (2013)2 SCC 398.

12. In a recent judgment in ABCD Vs.
Union of India and others (2020) 2 SCC
52, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
matter where material facts had been
concealed, while issuing notice to the
petitioner therein, exercising its suo-motu
contempt power, observed as under :

"15. 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. In respect
of
matters
coming
under
Section
195(1)(b)(i) of the Code, in Pushpadevi M.
Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan etc., (1987) 3 SCC
367 prosecution was directed to be
launched after prima facie satisfaction was
recorded by this Court.

16. It has also been laid down by this
Court in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar
Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421 that a person
who makes an attempt to deceive the court,
interferes with the administration of justice
and can be held guilty of contempt of court.
In that case a husband who had filed a
fabricated document to oppose the prayer
of his wife seeking transfer of matrimonial
6 All. Bhaskar Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
129
proceedings was found guilty of contempt
of court and sentenced to two weeks
imprisonment. It was observed as under:

"1. The stream of administration of
justice has to remain unpolluted so that
purity of court's atmosphere may give
vitality to all the organs of the State.
Polluters
of
judicial
firmament
are,
therefore, required to be well taken care of
to maintain the sublimity of court's
environment; so also to enable it to
administer justice
fairly and to the
satisfaction of all concerned.

2. Anyone who takes recourse to
fraud, deflects the course of judicial
proceedings; or if anything is done with
oblique motive, the same interferes with the
administration of justice. Such persons are
required to be properly dealt with, not only
to punish them for the wrong done, but also
to deter others from indulging in similar
acts which shake the faith of people in the
system of administration of justice.

* * *

14. The legal position thus is that if
the publication be with intent to deceive the
court or one made with an intention to
defraud, the same would be contempt, as it
would interfere with administration of
justice. It would, in any case, tend to
interfere with the same. This would
definitely be so if a fabricated document is
filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the
case at hand the fabricated document was
apparently to deceive the court; the
intention to defraud is writ large. Anil
Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt."

17. In K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel
Authority of India Limited and others
(2008) 12 SCC 481 it was observed:

"39.
If
the
primary
object
as
highlighted in Kensington Income Tax
Commrs., (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257
: 116 LT 136 (CA) is kept in mind, an
applicant who does not come with candid
facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ
of
the
court
with
"soiled
hands".
Suppression or concealment of material
facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery,
manipulation,
manoeuvring
or
misrepresentation, which has no place in
equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If
the applicant does not disclose all the
material facts fairly and truly but states
them in a distorted manner and misleads
the court, the court has inherent power in
order to protect itself and to prevent an
abuse of its process to discharge the rule
nisi and refuse to proceed further with the
examination of the case on merits. If the
court does not reject the petition on that
ground, the court would be failing in its
duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to
be dealt with for contempt of court for
abusing the process of the court."

18. In Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of
Haryana and others (1995) 3 SCC 757
filing of a false affidavit was the basis for
initiation of action in contempt jurisdiction
and the concerned persons were punished."

13. It was held in the judgments
referred to above that 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
preIndependence
era,
however,
postIndependence 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, the values
130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have gone down and now a litigants can go
to any extent to mislead the court. They
have no respect for the truth. The principle
has been evolved to meet the challenge
posed by this new breed of litigants. 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.

14. Further, perusal of the order dated
January 18, 2022 passed in Criminal WritPIL No. 1 of 2022 shows that the prayer
made therein was for a direction to the
authorities to investigate the violation of
law in allotment of fair price shop and
charges of corruption against the officials
involved. The relief prayed herein is
similar.

15. For the reasons mentioned above,
in our opinion, the present petition deserves
to be dismissed with cost of ?25,000/-.

16. Ordered accordingly.

17. The amount of cost shall be
deposited by the petitioner with U.P. State
Legal Services Authority, Lucknow within
a period of four weeks from today.
----------
(2022)06ILR A130
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
P.I.L. No. 2020 of 2021

Ved Prakash & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ajay Mishra, Sri Krishna Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pankaj Shukla

A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226PIL-petitiner prayed for diversion of the
power line/high tension memorandum
wire between the abadi area of the village
so
that
the
abadi
area,
schools,
agricultural fields may be unaffectedalignment is not decided by individual but
the same is a result of collective efforts of
experts-A decision to mark route for
electric line is highly specialized and
technical. the route may be running into
hundreds of kilometers passing through
land owned by different owners and it
may not be possible to offer hearing to all
the owners, as only right to use smallsmall portions of land on which towers or
occupiers of the land on the route to
suggest alternates. if that process is
adopted,
the
project
will
never
be
completed as any such decision would be
subject to judicial review and the State
and its functionaries may not be able to
provide infrastructure. only right available
to landowners is to receive compensation
and damages-Application filed by the
corporation deserves to be allowed.(Para
1 to 15)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

1. Vivek Brajendra Singh Vs St. of Govt. of
Mah. & ors. (2012) 4 BCR 116

2. G.V.S Rama Krishna & ors. Vs A.P Transco &
ors. (2009) AIR AP 158

3. Power Grid Corp. of India Ltd Vs Century
Textiles & Ind. Ltd & ors. (2017) AIR SC
1141