# Ram Prasad Rajouriya v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 667
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-10
- **Case number:** P.I.L. No. 433 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-prasad-rajouriya-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48287
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India, 1950 - Article
226 - Public Interest
Litigation -
embezzlement of Government money
granted for the development of GramPanchayat-a
committee
was
constituted to inquire into alleged
embezzlement of funds by the Gram
Pradhan-grievance raised is that no
action has been taken-a writ petition
filed by the petitioner earlier in which
the
same
relief
was
claimed-the
factum
of
filing
the
earlier
writ
petition has not been disclosed by the
petitioner
in the
present
petitionAnyone 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-In the last
40 years, the values have gone down
and now a litigants can go any extent
to mislead the court-the petition is
dismissed with cost.(Para 1 to 12)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Ram Prasad Rajouriya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
667
Singh also stands quashed for the same
reasons.

37. Since the writ petitions succeed
on the first argument itself, we are not
required to examine other grounds urged in
support of the writ petition. This bunch of
writ petitions, accordingly, is allowed. No
order is, however, passed as to costs.
----------
(2022)04ILR A667
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

P.I.L. No. 433 of 2022

Ram Prasad Rajouriya ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Sanehi Yadav, Priyanka Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Roy Addl. C.S.C., Sri Krishna Kant Singh

A. Constitution of India, 1950 - Article
226 - Public Interest
Litigation -
embezzlement of Government money
granted for the development of GramPanchayat-a
committee
was
constituted to inquire into alleged
embezzlement of funds by the Gram
Pradhan-grievance raised is that no
action has been taken-a writ petition
filed by the petitioner earlier in which
the
same
relief
was
claimed-the
factum
of
filing
the
earlier
writ
petition has not been disclosed by the
petitioner
in the
present
petitionAnyone 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-In the last
40 years, the values have gone down
and now a litigants can go any extent
to mislead the court-the petition is
dismissed with cost.(Para 1 to 12)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Abhyudya Sanstha Vs U.O.I. (2011) 6 SCC
145

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

3. G. Narayanaswamy Reddy Vs Govt. of Karn.
(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 J.J. Munir, J.)

1. The present petition has been filed
claiming to be in public interest praying for
the following reliefs:

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the
nature
of
Mandamus
commanding/directing
the
respondents
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authority to recover the embezzled money
from the respondents No.5 and 6.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus commanding/directing
the respondents authority to take suitable
action against the respondents No.5 and 6 due
to their illegal act in the embezzlement of
Government
money
granted
for
the
development of Gram Panchayat Barai
Shahpur, Tehsil and Block Sikandra Rao,
District Hathras.

(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus commanding/directing
the respondent No.2- District Magistrate,
District Hathras to decide the representation
dated 16.12.2019 filed by the petitioner
(Annexure No.2 to the Public Litigation
Petition)."

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner
referred to an order passed by District
Magistrate dated August 24, 2017 vide which
a Committee was constituted to inquire into
alleged embezzlement of funds by the Gram
Pradhan. The grievance raised is that no
action has been taken.

3. The learned counsel for respondent
No.6 produced before us the order passed by
this Court in Writ-C No.8261 of 2018, titled
as Ram Prasad Rajouria v. State of U.P. and
others filed by the petitioner earlier in which
same relief was claimed. The aforesaid writ
petition was dismissed on March 15, 2018.
He submitted that the factum of filing of the
aforesaid writ petition has not been disclosed
by the petitioner in the present petition.

4. Finding himself to be in awkward
situation, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that he may be permitted to
withdraw the present petition.

5. 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.

6. 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
4 All. Ram Prasad Rajouriya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
669
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,
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
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
any relief, interim or final." (emphasis
supplied)

7. 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)

8. 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.

9. 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 :
4 All. Ram Prasad Rajouriya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
671

"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
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
672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

10. 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
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.

11. In view of the aforesaid
authoritative pronouncements of law on the
issue of concealment of facts by a litigant,
if we allow the petitioner to withdraw the
present petition even then we feel that he
deserves to be burdened with cost.

12. The petition is, accordingly,
dismissed with cost of ₹50,000/-. The cost
shall be deposited with the Allahabad High
Court Bar Association within a period of
two months. In case of failure, the Bar
Association shall be at liberty to move
application in the present petition for
recovery of the amount from the petitioner.
----------
(2022)04ILR A672
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD16.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No.1395 of 2022

Pankaj Tyagi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sundeep Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 354, 452, 323,
504 & 506-quashing of charge-sheet and
summoning order-statement of the victim
has fully supported the prosecution casecognizable offence is made out as per
material available against the applicant-At
this stage, the magistrate has to be
satisfied
whether
there
is
sufficient
ground for proceeding, court below is not
required to go into the merit and demerit
of the case-Genuineness or otherwise of
the allegations cannot be determined at
the stage of summoning of the accused-