# Mritunjay Kumar Nand v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 957
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-04
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 18154 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mritunjay-kumar-nand-v-union-of-india-ors-48691
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

(A) Service Law - Constitution of India -
Court of Equity - the Armed Forces
Tribunal Act, 2007 - Section 3(o),14,15 -
When a person approaches a Court of
Equity in exercise of its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution - he should approach the
Court not only with clean hands but also
with clean mind, clean heart and clean
objective - "Jure Naturae Aequum Est
Neminem cum Alterius Detrimento Et
Injuria Fieri Locupletiorem" - it is a law
of nature that one should not be
enriched by the loss or injury to another
-
Filing
of
false
affidavit
and
concealment of material facts amounts
to interference in the administration of
justice and as such is criminal contempt
of Court. (Para -23,30 )

Petitioner made false averment - no other
efficacious alternative remedy except to
invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction
before this Court - Petitioner misrepresented
Court - by means of writ petition - to obtain
fruitful order . (Para - 6,22)

(B)
Extraordinary
Jurisdiction
-
Constitution of India ,1950 - Article 226
- jurisdiction depends on the person or
authority passing the order being within
those territories - residence or location
of the person affected can have no
relevance on the question of the High
Court's jurisdiction. (Para - 9)

HELD:-Petitioner not approached Court with clean
hands by making false averments . Enclosed
incomplete copy of advertisement deliberately
only in order to obtain a fruitful order. Petition
liable to be dismissed on ground of availability of
statutory alternative remedy being available to
petitioner. (Para -17,18,22)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

6 All. Mritunjay Kumar Nand Vs. Union of India & Ors.
957
Such an amount shall not be reimbursed by
the State to those officer(s)/official(s) under
any circumstance.

16. This Court is constrained to pass
such order for the reason that repeatedly in
the Court the appeals are being filed by the
State after huge delay as if no one is
responsible for taking care of litigation
which otherwise also results in causing
huge loss to the State exchequer besides
wasting precious time of the Court which is
already flooded with the cases and majority
of them are on account of inaction or
wrong action by the State.

17. Copy of this order shall be sent to
the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar
Pradesh and Secretary, Department of
Irrigation for information and compliance.
----------
(2022)06ILR A957
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-A No. 18154 of 2021

Mritunjay Kumar Nand ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Sri Rajesh Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Vinay Kumar Singh

(A) Service Law - Constitution of India -
Court of Equity - the Armed Forces
Tribunal Act, 2007 - Section 3(o),14,15 -
When a person approaches a Court of
Equity in exercise of its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution - he should approach the
Court not only with clean hands but also
with clean mind, clean heart and clean
objective - "Jure Naturae Aequum Est
Neminem cum Alterius Detrimento Et
Injuria Fieri Locupletiorem" - it is a law
of nature that one should not be
enriched by the loss or injury to another
-
Filing
of
false
affidavit
and
concealment of material facts amounts
to interference in the administration of
justice and as such is criminal contempt
of Court. (Para -23,30 )

Petitioner made false averment - no other
efficacious alternative remedy except to
invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction
before this Court - Petitioner misrepresented
Court - by means of writ petition - to obtain
fruitful order . (Para - 6,22)

(B)
Extraordinary
Jurisdiction
-
Constitution of India ,1950 - Article 226
- jurisdiction depends on the person or
authority passing the order being within
those territories - residence or location
of the person affected can have no
relevance on the question of the High
Court's jurisdiction. (Para - 9)

HELD:-Petitioner not approached Court with clean
hands by making false averments . Enclosed
incomplete copy of advertisement deliberately
only in order to obtain a fruitful order. Petition
liable to be dismissed on ground of availability of
statutory alternative remedy being available to
petitioner. (Para -17,18,22)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs U.O.I., 2004 0
Supreme (All) 1841

2. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta Vs
Bombay Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 577

3. O.N.G.C. Vs Uptal Kumar Basu, (1994) 4 SCC 711

4. U.O.I. Vs Adani Exports Ltd. & anr. , AIR
2002 SC 126
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
5. Rajasthan High Court Advocates Assc. Vs
U.O.I. & ors. , AIR 2001 SC 416

6. U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad Vs
St. of U.P. , (1995) 4 SCC 738

7. Navinchandra N.. Majithia Vs St. of Maha. &
ors. ,AIR 2000 SC 2966

8. L. Chandra Kumar Vs U.O.I. & ors. , (1997) 3
SCC 261

9. Devi Saran Mishra Vs U.O.I. & ors., 2010 (3)
ADJ 593

10. The Ramjas Foundation & ors. Vs U.O.I. &
ors., AIR 1993 SC 852

11. K.P. Srinivas Vs R.M. Premchand & ors.,
(1994) 6 SCC 620)

12. Nooruddin Vs (Dr.) K.L. Anand , (1995) 1
SCC 242

13. Ramniklal N. Bhutta & anr. Vs St. of Maha.
& ors., AIR 1997 SC 1236

14. Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao Vs K Parasaran &
ors., AIR 1996 SC 2687

15. K.K. Modi Vs K.N. Modi & ors., 1998) 3 SCC
573

16. M/s. Tilokchand Motichand & ors. Vs H.B.
Munshi & anr., AIR 1970 SC 898

17. St. of Haryana Vs Karnal Distillery, AIR 1977
SC 781

18. Sabia Khan & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
(1999) 1 SCC 271

19. Agriculture & Process Food Products Vs
Oswal Agro Furane & ors., AIR 1996 SC 1947

20. King Vs General Commissioner, (1917) 1 KB
486

21. Abdul Rahman Vs Prasony Bai & anr., AIR
2003 SC 718

22. K.D. Sharma Vs SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC
481
23. G. Jayashree Vs Bhagwandas S. Patel ,
(2009) 3 SCC 141.

24. Sunkara Lakshminarasamma & anr. Vs Sagi
Subba Raju & ors. , (2009) 7 SCC 460

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the respondent-Union of India.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has made following
relief:

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of Certiorari, calling for the
records of the case and to quash the
impugned order dated 26thOctober, 2021
passed by Lieutenant Colonel Officer
Officer In-Charge Rtg., respondent no.3
(Annexure No.7 to this writ petition)."

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus commanding the
respondents to forthwith issue appointment
letter and confer appointment in favour of
of petitioner as Draughtsman in General
Reserve Engineer Force, Cenre DIGHI
Camp Pune, Maharashthra.

...."

It is the case of the petitioner that
pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1/2021
dated 20th February, 2021, the petitioner
being possessed with matriculation and
intermediate mark-sheets/certificates and
three Years diploma in Architectural
Assistantship, applied for the post of
Draughtsman through offline application
form. As per the said advertisement, total
43 posts of draughtsman were advertised in
following categories: (i) 19 posts for
Unreserved category candidates, (ii) 6 posts
6 All. Mritunjay Kumar Nand Vs. Union of India & Ors.
959
for Scheduled Caste category candidates,
(iii) 3 posts for Scheduled Tribe Category
candidates,
(iv)
11 posts
for Other
Backward Class category candidates and
(v) 4 posts for Economic Weaker Section
category
candidates.
The
petitioner
appeared in the written examination and
was declared successful and his name was
placed at serial no. 22 of the result. By
means of letter dated 20th September,
2021, the petitioner was required to appear
in the physical efficiency test and primary
medical examination which were scheduled
to be held between 25th October, 2021 to
27th
October,
2021.
Thereafter,
the
petitioner has received an order dated 26th
October, 2021 at his residence at District
Azamgarh wherein it has been mentioned
that due to overlapping of Intermediate
Examination
Mark-sheet/certificate
and
Diploma Degree of the petitioner, he could
not be given placement and selection. It is
against this order that the present writ
petition has been filed.

3. Challenging the order impugned,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the order impugned cannot sustain the
scrutiny of law, as there would be no bar in
obtaining two degrees in one and same
academic session. The order impugned is
an ex parte order, as before passing the
same, neither the petitioner has been
afforded opportunity of hearing nor any
show-cause notice has been issued to him.
Even otherwise, the petitioner would
submit that he undertook admission in the
academic
session
2013-2014
in
Intermediate as a private student, whereas
he took admission in undergoing diploma
course in Architectural Assistantship in
academic-session 2012-2015 as a regular
student. The bar in obtaining two degrees in
a particular academic session would be
restricted only to regular candidates and not
private students. The impugned order does
not provide any law based upon which an
alleged overlapping was stood to be not
taken for consideration for conferring
appointment. On the cumulative strength of
the aforesaid, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the order impugned
cannot be legally sustained and is liable to
be dismissed.

4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents has raised maintainability of
the present writ petition before the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad on the
ground that the advertisement No. 1/2021
dated 20th February, 2021 has been issued
by the Government of India, Ministry of
Defence, Border Roads Wing, Border
Roads
Organization,
General
Reserve
Engineer Force of which neither the
headquarter nor any office of the same is
situated within the territorial jurisdiction of
the Allahabad High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad. The place wherein all the
examinations i.e. written examination,
physical
efficiency
test
and
primary
medical examination were held at GREF
Centre,Dighi
Camp.,
Pune-15
(Maharashtra)
and
from
where,
the
impugned order has been passed (by
respondent no.3 i.e.Lieutenant Colonel
Officer Officer In-Charge Rtg., GREF
Centre, Dighi Camp., Pune), is at Pune,
Maharashtra, which is also not within the
territorial jurisdiction of Allahabad High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Only on
the basis of the fact that the petitioner has
received the impugned order at his
residence i.e. Village Khand, Post Luchui
(Latghat), Azamgarh, no cause of action
will arise within the territorial jurisdiction
of this Court. In the facts of the present
case, the entire cause of action arose at
Pune, Maharashtra. Merely because the
petitioner is residing at Azamgarh, Uttar
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Pradesh, this will not give jurisdiction to
this Court. Learned counsel for the
respondents, therefore, submits that the
present writ petition is not maintainable
before this Court, as the same has no
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same.

5.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents next submits that against the
order impugned which has been passed by
respondent no.3 i.e.Lieutenant Colonel
Officer Officer In-Charge Rtg., GREF
Centre, Dighi Camp., Pune, the petitioner
has efficacious statutory alternative remedy
by approaching the concerned Armed
Forces Tribunal either at Mumbai or at
Delhi under the Armed Forces Tribunal
Act, 2007. Learned counsel for the
respondents, therefore, submits that the
present writ petition be dismissed on the
ground
of
availability
of
statutory
alternative remedy.

6. Apart from the above, learned
counsel for the respondents submits that the
petitioner has made false averment in
paragraph-17
by
submitting
that
the
petitioner
has
no
other
efficacious
alternative remedy except to invoke the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction before this
Court.

7. When as a matter of fact in the
Advertisement No. 1/2021 dated 20th
February, 2021 itself pursuant to which the
petitioner
applied
for
the
post
of
draughtsman, in sub-clause (j) of Clause14, which provides for Miscellaneous
Information, it has been provided that any
legal
issues
arising
out
of
this
Advertisement shall fall within the legal
jurisdiction of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
However, deliberately, the petitioner has
enclosed only first page of the said
advertisement as Annexure-4 to the writ
petition, when as matter of fact the said
advertisement contains 31 pages, a copy of
which has been placed before this Court by
the learned counsel for the respondents
which is taken on record. In view of the
aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that as the petitioner has not
approached this Court with clean hands, the
present writ petition is liable to be
dismissed with exemplary cost, on the
ground of fraud and misrepresentation.

8. I have considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties
and have gone through the records of the
present writ petition including the copy of
the Advertisement No. 1/2021 dated 20th
February, 2021, which has been placed
before this Court today by the learned
counsel for the respondents.

9. This Court finds substance in the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the respondents that this Court has no
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same,
as the entire cause of action in the present
case arose at Pune. The Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar
Mishra Vs. Union of India reported in
2004 0 Supreme (All) 1841, after following
various judgments of the Apex Court has
answered that for the reasons given above
we are of the opinion that the Chief of
Army Staff can only be sued either at Delhi
where he is located or at a place where the
cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid Full
Bench judgment, which are relevant for
deciding the present writ petition, read as
follows:

"10. In our opinion the observation in
the aforesaid decision "The Chief of Army
Staff may be sued in any High Court in the
Country" cannot be construed to mean that
6 All. Mritunjay Kumar Nand Vs. Union of India & Ors.
961
the Supreme Court has laid down any
absolute proposition that it is open to the
petitioner to file a writ petition in any High
Court
in
India.
Such
an
absolute
proposition as canvassed by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner may lead to
conflicting decisions because different
petitions can be filed in different High
Courts by co-accused in the same case and
conflicting decisions can be given.

11. It may be noted that the aforesaid
observation in the three Judges decision of
the Supreme Court in Dinesh Chandra
Gahlori's case (supra) is only a laconic
observation and it cannot be override
Larger Bench decisions of the Supreme
Court.

12. In the present case it may be
noted that the misconduct was committed
at Calcutta and Summary Court Martial
was also held at Calcutta. Thus the entire
cause of action arose at Calcutta. We,
therefore, fail to understand how a writ
petition can be entertained at Allahabad
High Court where no part of the cause of
action had arisen.

13. In our opinion merely because
the petitioner is presently residing in
Ballia this will not give jurisdiction to
this Court in view of the Seven Judges
Bench decision of the Supreme Court in
Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh Vs. Union of
India. AIR 1961 SC 532. In paragraph 13
of the aforesaid decision the Supreme
Court observed:

"Now it is clear that the jurisdiction
conferred on the High Court by Article
226 does not depend upon the residence
or location of the person applying to it
for relief; it depends only on the person
or authority x against whom a writ is
sought being within those territories. It
seems to us, therefore, that it is not
permissible to read in Article 226 the
residence or location of the person
affected by the order passed in order to
determine the jurisdiction of the High
Court. That jurisdiction depends on the
person or authority passing the order
being within those territories and the
residence or location of the person
affected can have no relevance on the
question
of
the
High
Court's
jurisdiction. Thus if a person residing or
located in Bombay, for example, is
aggrieved by an order passed by an
authority located, say , in Calcutta, the
forum in which he has to seek relief is
not the Mumbai High Court though the
order may affect him in Bombay but the
Calcutta High Court where the authority
passing the order is located. It would,
therefore, in our opinion be wrong to
introduce in Article the concept of the
place where the order passed has effect
in order to determine the jurisdiction of
the High Court which can give relief
under Article."

.....

42. In the present case no part of the
cause of action has arisen in U.P. Hence
in our opinion the writ petition is not
maintainable
in
this
Court.
It
is
accordingly dismissed. The decision of the
Division Bench in Kailash Nath Tiwari
Vs. Union of India (Supra) in our opinion
does not lay down the correct law and is
overruled."

 (Emphasis supplied)

10. In the case of Board of Trustees
for the Port of Calcutta Vs. Bombay
Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., reported in AIR
1995 SC 577, the Apex Court has affirmed
the principle that the place where the whole
or part of the cause of action arises, gives
jurisdiction to the Court within whose
territory such place is situated. Whether the
cause of action has arisen within the
territory of the particular Court will have to
962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be determined in each case on its own facts
in the context of the subject matter of the
litigation, and relief claimed.

11. In the case of Oil and Natural
Gas Commission Vs. Uptal Kumar Basu,
reported in (1994) 4 SCC 711, it was held
by the Apex Court:

"Under Article 226 a High Court can
exercise the power to issue directions,
orders or writs for the enforcement of any
of the fundamental rights conferred by Part
III of the Constitution or for any other
purpose if the cause of action wholly or in
part, had arisen within the territories in
relation to which it exercises jurisdiction,
notwithstanding that the seat of the
Government or authority or the residence
of the person against, whom the direction,
order or writ is issued is not within the said
territories. The expression "cause of
action" means that bundle of facts which
the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to
entitle him to a judgment in his favour by
the Court. Therefore, in determining the
objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction
the Court must take all the facts pleaded in
support of the cause of action into
consideration albeit without embarking
upon an enquiry as to the correctness or
otherwise of the said facts. Thus, the
question of territorial jurisdiction must be
decided on the facts pleaded in the petition,
the truth or otherwise of the averments
made in the petition being immaterial."

12. In Union of India Vs. Adani
Exports Ltd. And Anr. reported in AIR
2002 SC 126. the Apex Court held that the
High Court must be satisfied from the
entire facts pleaded in support of the cause
of action that those facts do constitute a
cause so as to empower the Court to decide
a dispute which has, at least in part, arisen
within its jurisdiction. Each and every fact
pleaded by the party in its application does
not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that
those facts give rise to a cause of action
within the Court's territorial jurisdiction
unless those facts, pleaded are such which
have a nexus or relevance with the lis that
is involved in the case Facts, which have no
bearing with the lis or the dispute involved
in the case, do not give rise to a cause of
action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction
on the Court concerned.

13. Similarly in the case of
Rajasthan
High
Court
Advocates
Association Vs. Union of India & Ors.
reported in AIR 2001 SC 416, the Apex
Court held that clauses (1) and (2) of
Article of the Constitution provide how
territorial jurisdiction shall be exercised by
any High Court and one of the test may be
as to whether the cause of action partly or
fully has arisen within its territorial
jurisdiction. While deciding the said case
reliance was placed upon the Court's earlier
judgment in U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill
Adhikari Parishad Vs. State of U.P.
reported in (1995) 4 SCC 738, wherein it
had been held that the expression "cause of
action" has acquired a judicially-settled
meaning. In the restricted sense, cause of
action means the circumstances forming,
the infraction of the right of the immediate
occasion for the action. In the wider sense,
it means the necessary conditions for the
maintenance of the suit, including not only
the infraction of the right, but the infraction
coupled
with
the
right
itself.
Compendiously
the
expression
means
every fact which it would be necessary for
the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order
to support his right to the judgment of the
Court. Every fact which is necessary to be
proved, as distinguished from every piece
of evidence which is necessary to prove
6 All. Mritunjay Kumar Nand Vs. Union of India & Ors.
963
each fact, comprises the "cause of action".
It has to be left to be determined in each
individual case as to where the cause of
action arises.

14. In Navinchandra N.. Majithia y.
state of Maharashtra and others reported
in AIR 2000 SC 2966, the Apex Court
while considering the provisions of clause
(2) of Article of the Constitution, observed
:

"In legal parlance the expression
'cause of action' is generally understood to
mean a situation or State of facts that
entities a party to maintain an action in a
Court or a Tribunal; a group of operative
facts giving rise to one or more basis for
suing; a factual situation that entitles one
person to obtain a remedy in Court from
another person..........'Cause of action is
stated to be the entire set of facts that gives
rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase
comprises every fact, which, if traversed,
the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain
judgment..:the meaning attributed to the
phrase 'cause of action1 in common legal
parlance is existence of those facts which
give a party a right to judicial interference
on his behalf."

15. To the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the respondents that
against the order impugned the petitioner
has efficacious statutory alternative remedy
by approaching the concerned Armed
Forces Tribunal, this Court is of the opinion
that in view of the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar
Vs. Union of India and others reported in
(1997) 3 SCC 261, specifically after
enforcement of Armed Forces Tribunal Act,
2007, the petitioner first should have
apportioned the concerned Armed Forces
Tribunal against the order impugned.

16. In Devi Saran Mishra Vs. Union
of India and Others, reported in 2010 (3)
ADJ 593 (paragraphs 23, 24, 25, 26 and
27), a learned Single Judge of this Court
has considered in detail the provisions of
the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (in
short "the Act") in the light of various
judicial decisions, and has held that in case,
the cause of action involved in a Writ
Petition is such as falls within the
jurisdiction
of
the
Tribunal
after
enforcement of the Armed Forces Tribunal
Act, 2007, such cause of action has to be
adjudicated upon in the first instance by the
Tribunal. It is only after the decision of the
Tribunal, that the matter would come to the
High Court under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India. The cause of action
of the present Writ Petition as noted above,
is evidently such as falls within the
jurisdiction
of
the
Tribunal
after
enforcement of the Act. This is evident
from the provisions contained in Section 14
read with Section 3(o) of the said Act as
well as Section 15 of the said Act, 2007.

17. In view of the aforesaid, this
Court is of the opinion that the present writ
petition is liable to be dismissed on the
ground
of
availability
of
statutory
alternative remedy being available to the
petitioner.

18. This Court also agrees with the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the respondents that the petitioner has
not approached this Court with clean hands
by making false averments in paragraph-17
and by enclosing incomplete copy of the
advertisement deliberately only in order to
obtain a fruitful order from this Court.

19. For ready reference, paragraph17 of the present writ petition reads as
follows:
964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"17. That petitioners have no other
efficacious
alternative
speedy
remedy
except
to
invoke
extraordinary
writ
jurisdiction before this Hon'ble Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, on inter alia amongst other."

20. This Court also perused the copy
of the complete Advertisement No. 1/2021
dated 20th February, 2021 published by the
Government of India, Ministry of Defence,
Border
Roads
Wing,
Border
Roads
Organization, General Reserve Engineer
Force, which contains 33 pages, has been
placed before by this Court today by the
learned counsel for the respondents, when
as matter of fact the petitioner has enclosed
first page of the said advertisement
deliberately. After perusal of the same, this
Court finds that as per the terms and
conditions
mentioned
in
the
said
advertisement itself, it has been provided
that in case any legal issues arises pursuant
to the aforesaid advertisement, the same
shall be adjudicated upon before the High
Court of Delhi.

21. It would worthwhile to reproduce
Clause-14 (j) of the Terms and Conditions
mentioned in the aforesaid advertisement,
which reads as follows:

"14. Miscellaneous Information

 .......

(j) Any legal issues arising out of this
Advertisement shall fall within the legal
jurisdiction of Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi.

..."

22. From the aforesaid it is apparently
clear
that
that
the
petitioner
has
misrepresented this Court by means of the
present writ petition only in order to obtain
fruitful order.

23. When a person approaches a
Court of Equity in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226/227 of the Constitution, he should
approach the Court not only with clean
hands but also with clean mind, clean heart
and clean objective. (Vide The Ramjas
Foundation & Ors. Vs. Union of India &
Ors., AIR 1993 SC 852; K.P. Srinivas Vs.
R.M. Premchand & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC
620). Thus, who seeks equity must do
equity. The legal maxim "Jure Naturae
Aequum Est Neminem cum Alterius
Detrimento Et Injuria Fieri Locupletiorem",
means that it is a law of nature that one
should not be enriched by the loss or injury
to another.

In the case of Nooruddin Vs. (Dr.)
K.L. Anand reported in (1995) 1 SCC
242, the Apex Court observed as under:

"????..Equally, the judicial process
should never become an instrument of
appreciation or abuse or a means in the
process of the Court to subvert justice."

Similarly, in the case of Ramniklal
N.
Bhutta
& Anr. Vs. State
of
Maharashtra & Ors., reported in AIR
1997 SC 1236, the Apex Court observed
as under:-

"The
power
under Art.
226
is
discretionary. It will be exercised only in
furtherance of justice and not merely on the
making out of a legal point??. the interest
of justice and public interest coalesce. They
are very often one and the same. ?? The
Courts have to weight the public interest
vis--vis the private interest while exercising
the power under Art. 226?? indeed any of
their discretionary powers.

(Emphasis added)"

24. In the case of Dr. Buddhi Kota
Subbarao Vs. K Parasaran & Ors.,
reported in AIR 1996 SC 2687, the Apex
Court has observed as under:-
6 All. Mritunjay Kumar Nand Vs. Union of India & Ors.
965

"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 he wishes. Easy, access to
justice should not be misused as a licence
to
file
misconceived
and
frivolous
petitions."

25. Similar view has been reiterated
by the Apex Court in the case of K.K.
Modi Vs. K.N. Modi & Ors. reported in
(1998) 3 SCC 573.

26. In M/s. Tilokchand Motichand
& Ors. Vs. H.B. Munshi & Anr., reported
in AIR 1970 SC 898; State of Haryana Vs.
Karnal Distillery, reported in AIR 1977 SC
781; and Sabia Khan & Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors., reported in (1999) 1 SCC 271,
the Apex Court held that filing totally
misconceived petition amounts to abuse of
the process of the Court and such a litigant
is not required to be dealt with lightly, as
petition
containing
misleading
and
inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an
ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the
process of the Court.

27. In Agriculture & Process Food
Products Vs. Oswal Agro Furane & Ors.,
reported in AIR 1996 SC 1947, the Apex
Court had taken a serious objection in a case
filed by suppressing the material facts and
held that if a petitioner is guilty of
suppression of very important fact his case
cannot be considered on merits. Thus, a
litigant is bound to make "full and true
disclosure of facts". While deciding the said
case, the Apex Court had placed reliance
upon the judgment in King Vs. General
Commissioner, reported in (1917) 1 KB 486,
wherein it has been observed as under:-

"Where an ex parte application has
been made to this Court for a rule nisi or
other process, if the Court comes to the
conclusion that the affidavit in support of
the application was not candid and did not
fairly state the facts, but stated them in
such a way as to mislead the Court as to
the true facts, the Court ought, for its own
protection and to prevent abuse of its
process, to refuse to proceed any further
with the examination of its merits......."

28. In Abdul Rahman Vs. Prasony
Bai & Anr., reported in AIR 2003 SC 718;
and S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs.
State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2004) 7
SCC 166, the Apex Court held that
whenever
the
Court
comes
to
the
conclusion that the process of the Court is
being abused, the Court would be justified
in refusing to proceed further and refuse
relief to the party. This rule has been
evolved out of need of the Courts to deter a
litigant from abusing the process of the
Court by deceiving it. However, the
suppressed fact must be material one in the
sense that had it not been suppressed, it
would have led any fact on the merit of the
case.

29. In K.D. Sharma vs. SAIL,
reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481, the Apex
Court has held that the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the
High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and
discretionary and it is imperative that the
petitioner approaching the writ court must
come with clean hands and put forward all
the
facts
before
the
Court
without
concealing or suppressing anything and
seek an appropriate relief. If there is no
candid disclosure of relevant and material
facts or the petitioner is guilty of
misleading the Court, his petition may be
dismissed
at
the
threshold
without
considering the merits of the claim. The
966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
same law was reiterated in G. Jayashree
vs. Bhagwandas S. Patel reported in
(2009) 3 SCC 141.

30. The Apex Court has repeatedly
held that filing of false affidavit and
concealment of material facts amounts to
interference in the administration of justice
and as such is criminal contempt of Court.
Again the Apex Court in the case of
Sunkara Lakshminarasamma & Anr.
Versus Sagi Subba Raju & Ors. reported
in (2009) 7 SCC 460 held that filing of
false affidavit knowingly is a contempt and
exemplary cost be imposed.

31. In view of the aforesaid, this
Court finds no good ground to interfere in
the present writ petition. This petition is
accordingly dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
----------
(2022)06ILR A966
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-B No. 1117 of 2022

Rakesh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Singh Yadav, Sri Ishwar Chandra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani, Sri Rohit
Kumar Singh

(A) Revenue Law - The U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Section 195 - Admission to land , Section
198(4) - cancellation of the allotment ,
The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reform Rules, 1952 - Rules 173, 174,
175 & 176 - distinction between -
cancellation of an order of approval on
the ground that the same was without
jurisdiction - cancellation of an order of
allotment on account of an irregularity -
require the procedure under sub-section
(4) of Section 198 to be followed - Order
made without jurisdiction would be
unenforceable
and
inexecutable
and
would be devoid of any legal effect.
(Para -27,28,30)

Allotment in favour petitioners - proposal
approved by Tehsildar - complaint regard to
allotment - amended provisions - power to
grant approval stood with Assistant Collector
incharge of sub-division - District Magistrate
passed an order - approval granted by
Tehsildar contrary to law - approval cancelled
- land directed to be vested in Gaon Sabha -
revision before Board of Revenue - rejected -
time barred restoration application - rejected
by the Board of Revenue - hence writ
Petition.(Para -3,4,5 )

HELD:-Order
of
the
Tahsildar
granting
approval being without jurisdiction, the same
was a nullity and would have no effect.
District Magistrate upon receiving a complaint
and after getting the matter inquired has
rightly held that since the Tahsildar was not
empowered to grant approval on the said
date in view of the amendment made to
Section 195 the order of approval was beyond
jurisdiction and accordingly the same was
cancelled. (Para -29,30 )

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ram Singh Yadav,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
J.P.N.
Raj,
learned Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondents and Sri Rohit Kumar Singh,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
respondent nos. 6 and 8.