# Ram Sanwarey Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** J. Misc. Single No. 2391 of 2016
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-03-04
- **Case number:** J. Misc. Single No. 2391 of 2016
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-sanwarey-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46299
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

law-Petitioner
resorted-deliberate
misrepresentation-fraud upon court-W.P.
dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- (E-9)

Cases cited:

## Text

3-5 All. Ram Sanwarey Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
1095

22. Thus, in addition to suppression,
concealment and attempts at misleading
this Court, the writ petition is also totally
misconceived and is accordingly dismissed
with exemplary cost of Rs 2 lakhs.

23. The petitioner is directed to
deposit the cost with the Senior Registrar of
this Court at Lucknow within six weeks
from today. The cost so deposited shall be
remitted to the Mediation and Conciliation
Centre of this Court. In case, the cost is not
deposited by the petitioner within the time
granted to him for the purpose, the same
shall be realized from him as arrears of
land revenue.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1095
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.03.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA,
J.

Misc. Single No. 2391 of 2016

Ram Sanwarey Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rohit Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Balram Yadav, Neeraj Chaurasiya

Civil
law-Petitioner
resorted-deliberate
misrepresentation-fraud upon court-W.P.
dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- (E-9)

Cases cited:

1. Shrisht Dhawan Vs. Shaw Bros., (1992) 1 SCC
534

2. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath,
(1994) 1 SCC 1

3. Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi & ors.,
(2003) 8 SCC 319

4. St. of U.P. & anr. Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao,
(2005) 6 SCC 149

5. Dalip Singh Vs. St. of U.P. & ors., 2010 (2)
SCC 114

6. Hari Narain Vs. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558,

7.Welcome Hotel Vs. St. of A.P. (1983) 4 SCC
575

8. G. Narayanaswamy Reddy Vs. Govt. of
Karnataka (1991) 3 SCC 261

9. Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. S.B.I. (2007) 8 SCC
449

10. Sunil Poddar Vs. U.O.I. (2008) 2 SCC 326

11.K.D. Sharma Vs. S.A.I.L. (2008) 12 SCC 481

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner, who alleges himself to be the
Manager since 1990 of Kedar Nath
Shikshan Sansthan, a Society established in
1977 and renewed from time to time
thereafter,
against
the
order
dated
31.12.2015 passed by the respondent no.4-
the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies &
Chits, Head Quarters, Lucknow, in which
he has directed the registration of list of
members of the Committee of Management
of the Society on the basis of documents
submitted by the respondent nos.7 and 8 as
the Manager and the President respectively
of the Society.
1096 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3.

The
petitioner
has
further
challenged the order dated 13.09.2011
passed by the respondent no.3 by which
allegedly a modified list of membership of
the Executive Committee of the Society has
been registered, which was submitted by
the respondent no.7 through an application
dated 09.09.2011.

4. It has been submitted that the orders
impugned have been passed on the basis of
fraud played by the private respondents in
collusion with the Deputy Registrar, Firms,
Societies & Chits, Faizabad and the Deputy
Registrar Headquarters Lucknow. By the orders
impugned, the respondent no.4 has affirmed the
petitioner's expulsion from the post of the
Manager as well as from the primary
membership of the Society. It has been
submitted that the action of the respondent
nos.7 and 8 is without issuing any notice or
affording any opportunity of hearing.

5. It has been submitted that a dispute
came into being with the induction of Smt.
Girija Singh, respondent no.8 on account of
death of one Dr. Ram Kumar Tripathi, who was
the founder member. Smt Girja Singh was
elected as the President on the death of the
sitting President of the Society on 19.05.2002
for the remaining term.

6. It has been submitted that the
respondent no.8 soon after her election on the
post of the President started inducting her
relatives as members of the Society as well as
its Executive Committee. The petitioner was
opposed to such conduct and therefore the
respondent no.7 posing as as the Manager, on
the instructions of the respondent no.8,
submitted an application for registration of list
of members of the Executive Committee of the
Society for the year 2011-12.

A copy of the letter dated 09.09.2011 and
the accompanying list of members of Executive
Committee has been filed as annexure - 3 & 4
to the writ petition.

7. In paragraph-9 of the petition, the
petitioner states that no fresh elections had
taken place and the respondent no.7 could not
have been elected as the Manager of the Society
in place of the petitioner, therefore, the conduct
of the respondent no.3 in registering the list
submitted by the respondent no.7 by his order
dated 13.09.2011 was also an act of fraud and
collusion.

8. It has been further submitted that the
respondent no.3 did not issue any notice
inviting objections before passing the order
dated 13.09.2011, registering the amended list
of Executive Members.

9. In paragraph-11 of the writ petition,
the
petitioner
has
stated
that
the
reconstitution of the Executive Committee
as reflected in the covering letter dated
09.09.2011 registered on 13.09.2011, was
dubious and illegal. Consequently, in order
to give it a colour of legitimacy, an Agenda
was circulated on 17.10.2011 for a meeting
of the General Body of the Society which
was to be held on 29.10.2011. In the
Agenda notice, no item relating to the issue
of expulsion of the petitioner from the post
of Manager or the Primary Membership of
the
Society
was
mentioned.
By
manipulating and forging the minutes of
the meeting, an item concerning the
petitioner's expulsion was added in the
minutes. A copy of the minutes of the
meeting dated 29.10.2011 has been filed as
annexure-6 to the writ petition. It has been
stated that the minutes of the meeting dated
29.10.2011 are completely silent on the list
of
Executive
Committee
Members
submitted on 09.09.2011 and the order
passed
on
13.09.2011.
When
the
reconstituted list of members of the
3-5 All. Ram Sanwarey Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
1097
Executive
Committee,
following
the
meeting dated 29.10.2011, was submitted
for registration, the respondent no.3 issued
notice to the petitioner on 19.11.2011. The
petitioner submitted his objection on
01.12.2012 saying that the petitioner's
expulsion was without any notice and
completely fraudulent exercise.

10. It has been further submitted that
since the Deputy Registrar, Faizabad, was
related
to
the
respondent no.8,
the
petitioner moved a transfer application
before the respondent no.2 and the matter
was transferred to the respondent no.4.
After the matter was transferred to
Lucknow, the petitioner and respondent
no.8
again
submitted
the
written
submissions.

11. The petitioner also requested for
personal hearing and for permitting him to
produce
certain
documents
like
the
proceedings register, the agenda register,
the fee register, the income and expenditure
register and the membership receipts, but
all such requests were ignored and the
respondent no.4 passed the order impugned
without recording any finding on the effect
of the order dated 13.09.2011, by which the
reconstituted Executive Committee was
registered by the respondent no.3 even
prior to the meeting of the General Body,
which allegedly expelled the petitioner
from the post of the Manager and from
primary membership of the Society.

12. It has been submitted by Sri Rohit
Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner,
during the course of arguments, that
although the order passed by the Deputy
Registrar dated 31.12.2015 runs into 33
pages, it does not deal with the arguments
made by the petitioner that the General
Body meeting dated 29.10.2011 was a
completely fraudulent exercise to cover up
the expulsion of the petitioner carried out
by the respondent no.7 and 8 even before
holding of the meeting, as is evident from
the letter dated 09.09.2011 and the order
passed on 13.09.2011.

13. Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel
for the petitioner, has vehemently argued
on the basis of page nos. 53, 54 and 55 of
the writ petition that it is evident that the
reconstituted Committee of Management
registered by the order dated 13.09.2011
mentions the respondent no.7 as the
Manager instead of the petitioner, even
before the petitioner was ousted in the
alleged General Body meeting held on
29.10.2011.

14. A counter affidavit was filed on
behalf of the State-respondents. It was
specifically denied that the amended list of
Executive Committee submitted by the
Deputy Secretary contained the name of
respondent no.7 as Manager. It was further
submitted that the petitioner was expelled
from the Society due to continuous absence
from the meetings of the Society.

15. A counter affidavit was also filed
by Sri Balram Yadav, on behalf of the
private respondent nos.7 and 8 stating
therein that no fraud was committed at all
as alleged. The petitioner was expelled
from the primary membership of the
society and also from the post of Manager
as he was not attending the meetings of the
General Body or of the Executive Council
for the past more than one year and had not
deposited the prescribed membership fee.
His membership had already come to an
end automatically as per Bye-law no.6 of
the Bye-laws of the society filed as C.A.-2
to the counter affidavit. It was further
submitted that there is no provision in the
1098 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bye-laws to give notice to a Member for
expulsion from the membership of the
Society, who does not deposit membership
fee and who does not attend three
consecutive meetings of the Executive
Body.

16. The Agenda dated 17.10.2011
clearly stated that any other issue can be
raised for discussion in the General Body
meeting proposed to be held, with the
approval of the President. The issue of
misconduct of the petitioner and one Sripati
Singh was raised after approval of the
President
in
the
meeting
held
on
29.10.2011 and thereafter, the proposal to
expel them was put to vote and approved
by the General Body.

17. During the course of arguments
by the counsel for the parties, the
discrepancy in the list submitted by letter
dated 09.09.2011 as was pointed out by Sri
Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the
petitioner, was disputed by Sri Balram
Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent,
who expressed doubt with regard to the
correctness of the annexure filed with the
writ petition.

18. This court passed an order on
04.09.2019 which is being quoted here in
below:-

"Shri
Balram
Yadav,
while
answering to the query made by the Court
earlier, has produced before this Court a
copy of list of Committee of Management
submitted by Shri Radhey Raman Dubey as
Dy. Manager on 09.09.2011 for the year
2011-12.

From a perusal of the said list, it
is apparent that it contains the name of the
petitioner-Ram Sanwarey Yadav, as a
Manager of the Institution and it has been
signed by Smt. Girija Singh, Surjit Singh,
Radhey Raman Dubey, Deomani and some
others. However, Shri Balram Yadav has
pointed out the page nos.53, 54, and 55 of
the writ petition to show that a different list
has been annexed with the covering letter
being the same i.e. of 09.09.2011 showing
Radhey Raman Dubey as Manager and
removing the name of Shri Ram Sanwarey
Yadav to buttress the arguments made by
the petitioner that the decision to oust the
petitioner
from
the
Committee
of
Management was taken before 09.09.2011
and the intent is visible in the said list
whereas the actual resolution for removal
of Shri Ram Sanwarey Yadav was passed
on 29.10.2011. Shri Balram Yadav, has
also pointed out that the certified copy of
the letter dated 09.09.2011 which has been
filed as Annexure at page no.53 shows the
same to have been obtained in 2013
certified copy of the Page nos.54 & 55
seem to have been obtained on 25.02.2012.
They relate to different documents and they
have been combined to show that they
relate to one document.

Since it is the insistence of the
petitioner that no such manipulations has
been done and it is the certified copy of
Page no.522 of the record of the Office of
Dy. Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits,
Faizabad. Let the record of the office of the
Dy. Registrar be produced on 18.09.2019
to enable the Court to come to a definite
conclusion with regard to the list submitted
through
the
covering
letter
dated
09.09.2011 and the list submitted after
29.10.2011, again for the year 2011-12 by
Mr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh.
List this matter on 18.09.2019."

19. When the matter was taken up for
hearing again on 18.09.2019, this court
passed the following order:-
3-5 All. Ram Sanwarey Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
1099

"In pursuance of the order passed
earlier by this Court, the record has been
produced by the learned Standing Counsel
sent from the office of the Deputy
Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits,
Faizabad (now Ayodhya).

The letter dated 9.9.2011 can be
found at Page no.98 of the record, which
has been sent by Sri Radhey Raman Dubey
of
Kedar
Nath
Shikshan
Sansthan,
Sonegaon, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar
Nagar, in which, it has been stated that the
applicant wishes to get the list of members
of the Committee of Management for the
year 2011-12 registered in the office of the
Deputy Registrar. The list submitted as
Annexure shows Ram Sanwarey Yadav as
Manager of the Samiti and it has been
signed by Smt. Girija Singh, Surjit Singh,
Rishabh Dev Singh, Dev Mani Verma,
Radhey Raman Dubey, Neetu Singh, Ram
Asrey Mishra and thumb impression of one
Samsira is also appended thereto. A letter
dated 11.11.2011 is also on record, which
has been sent by Raghvendra Pratap Singh
as Deputy Secretary of the Samiti. It
informs the Deputy Registrar that a
General Body meeting was held on
29.10.2011
and
the
Committee
of
Management
has
been
reconstituted
thereafter. A copy of the Minutes of the
meeting held on 29.10.2011 as well as the
amended list of Committee of Management
for the year 2011-12 has been prayed to be
registered. In the amended list annexed
along with the said letter, Radhey Raman
Dubey has been shown as Manager and
Rajesh Pratap Singh has been shown as
Deputy Manager and Raghvendra Pratap
Singh as Deputy Secretary.

It is evident from the record that
the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner on the basis of
pleadings that the Deputy Manager Radhey
Raman Dubey had submitted a list even
before the meeting held on 29.10.2011,
removing the name of Ram Sanwarey
Yadav as Manager of the Samiti is
incorrect.

Sri Rohit Tripathi has very fairly
stated that his client has misinformed him
and that his client perhaps was also
confused.

Sri Baldev Yadav appearing for
the contesting respondents has said that all
of the pleadings in the writ petition are
based on this apparent inconsistency in the
record. There is a deliberate attempt on
misrepresentation of correct facts before
this Court.

Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, judgment is reserved."

20. It is apparent from the perusal of
the pleadings on record filed by both the
parties and from the record produced by the
learned Standing Counsel as available in
the office of the Deputy Registrar,
Faizabad, that the petitioner resorted to
deliberate misrepresentation amounting to
fraud being played upon the court.

21. In (1992) 1 SCC 534 (Shrisht
Dhawan Vs. Shaw Bros.) the Supreme
Court in paragraph 20 has held as under:

"20. Fraud and collusion vitiate
even the most solemn proceedings in any
civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a
concept descriptive of human conduct."

22. In (1994) 1 SCC 1 (S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath) the
Supreme Court in paragraph 5 has held as
under:

"5.The principle of "finality of
litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent
of such an absurdity that it becomes an
engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest
1100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
litigants. The courts of law are meant for
imparting justice between the parties. One
who comes to the court, must come with
clean hands. We are constrained to say that
more often than not, process of the court is
being abused. Property-grabbers, taxevaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other
unscrupulous persons from all walks of life
find the court-process a convenient lever to
retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We
have no hesitation to say that a person,
who's case is based on falsehood, has no
right to approach the court. He can be
summarily thrown out at any stage of the
litigation."

23. In (2003) 8 SCC 319 (Ram
Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and
Others) the Supreme Court has held as
under:

"15. Commission of fraud on
court and suppression of material facts are
the core issues involved in these matters.
Fraud as is well-known vitiates every
solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwells
together.

16. Fraud is a conduct either by
letter or words, which induces the other
person, or authority to take a definite
determinative stand as a response to the
conduct of former either by word or letter.

17. It is also well settled that
misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud.
Indeed, innocent misrepresentations may
also give reason to claim relief against
fraud.

18.
A
fraudulent
misrepresentation is called deceit and
consists in leading a man into damage by
willfully or recklessly causing him to
believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud
in law if a party makes representations
which he knows to be false, and injury
ensues therefrom although the motive from
which the representations proceeded may
not have been bad.

23. An act of fraud on court is
always viewed seriously. A collusion or
conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights
of the others in relation to a property
would render the transaction void ab initio.
Fraud and deception are synonymous."

24. In (2005) 6 SCC 149 (State of
U.P. and Another Vs. T. Suryachandra
Rao) it was held by the Supreme Court in
paragraph-8 as under:

"8. By "fraud" is meant an
intention to deceive; whether it is from any
expectation of advantage to the party
himself or from ill will towards the other is
immaterial.
The
expression
"fraud"
involves two elements, deceit and injury to
the person deceived. Injury is something
other
than
economic
loss,
that
is,
deprivation of property, whether movable
or immovable or of money and it will
include and any harm whatever caused to
any person in body, mind, reputation or
such others. In short, it is a non-economic
or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or
advantage to the deceiver, will almost
always call loss or detriment to the
deceived. Even in those rare cases where
there is a benefit or advantage to the
deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the
deceived, the second condition is satisfied."

25. In Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and others, reported in 2010 (2) SCC 114,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed
that "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
3-5 All. Smt. Manju Devi Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
1101
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."

26. It referred to several judgments of the
Supreme Court like Hari Narain Vs. Badri
Das AIR 1963 SC 1558, Welcome Hotel Vs.
State of A.P. (1983) 4 SCC 575, G.
Narayanaswamy
Reddy
Vs.
Govt.
of
Karnataka (1991) 3 SCC 261, Prestige Lights
Ltd. Vs. S.B.I. (2007) 8 SCC 449, Sunil
Poddar Vs. Union Bank of India (2008) 2
SCC 326 and K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority
of India Limited (2008) 12 SCC 481, to
observe 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..........."

27. This Court has considered the case of
the petitioner on the basis of the pleadings made in
the writ petition, the arguments raised before this
Court both by the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the respondents and it finds that the petitioner
resorted to deliberate mis representation to invoke
the jurisdiction of this Court.

28. This writ petition is therefore
dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/-. The cost shall
be deposited by the petitioner in the Registry of this
Court within one month from today, which shall be
forwarded by the Registry to the Child Welfare
Committee, Lucknow, to be utilized for the welfare
of children in need of care and protection. In case of
failure to deposit the aforesaid cost by the petitioner,
the Senior Registrar shall request the District
Magistrate, Faizabad, to recover the amount from
the movable and immovable properties of the
petitioner as arrears of land revenue.
----------

(2020)03-05ILR A1101
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.05.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA,
J.

Misc. Single No. 3392 of 2018

Smt. Manju Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohammad Aslam Khan, Indrajeet Shukla,
Nitin Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Jai Kumar,
Santosh Kumar Tripathi

Civil Law-Transfer of Property Act-section
52-Transferee
pendente
lite-not
void
abinitio-transfer subject to-rights of the
parties finally determined-if transferee
pendente lite an prove-decree obtained on
collusion
-by
plaintiff
and
original
defendant-transferee entitled to file Recall