# Rohit Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1457
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-11
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 17496 of 2022
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rohit-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50120
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Laws - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article - 226 - UP Gram Panchayat Raj
Act, 1947 - Sections 14, 95(g)(1) - Writ
Petition - Elected Gram Pradhan - certain
complaints - show Cause Notice - reply to the
notice within 15 days required - plea has been
taken by the petitioner that before sending any
reply he had a serious health condition and in
absence of any reply, District Magistrate passed
the impugned order - court finds that, in the
impugned order, there is a clear finding
recorded by the District Magistrate, that reply
has been duly submitted by the petitioner and
after considering the same, order impugned was
passed - in the last 40 years, the values have
gone down and now a litigants can go to any
extent to mislead the court - Maxim supressio
veri, expression faisi, i.e. suppression of truth is
equivalent to expression of falsehood, gets
attracted - held, A litigant, who attempts to
pollute stream of justice or who touches pure
fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not
entitled to any relief, interim or final - hence,
the petition deserves to be dismissed with a cost
of Rs. 25,000/- directions issued, accordingly.
(Para - 8,17, 18)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Rohit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1457
(2023) 5 ILRA 1457
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ-C No. 17496 of 2022

Rohit Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Amit Kumar Rai, Sri Salilendu Kumar
Upadhyay, Sri Abhishek Dwivedi, Sri H.N.
Singh (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh

Civil Laws - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article - 226 - UP Gram Panchayat Raj
Act, 1947 - Sections 14, 95(g)(1) - Writ
Petition - Elected Gram Pradhan - certain
complaints - show Cause Notice - reply to the
notice within 15 days required - plea has been
taken by the petitioner that before sending any
reply he had a serious health condition and in
absence of any reply, District Magistrate passed
the impugned order - court finds that, in the
impugned order, there is a clear finding
recorded by the District Magistrate, that reply
has been duly submitted by the petitioner and
after considering the same, order impugned was
passed - in the last 40 years, the values have
gone down and now a litigants can go to any
extent to mislead the court - Maxim supressio
veri, expression faisi, i.e. suppression of truth is
equivalent to expression of falsehood, gets
attracted - held, A litigant, who attempts to
pollute stream of justice or who touches pure
fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not
entitled to any relief, interim or final - hence,
the petition deserves to be dismissed with a cost
of Rs. 25,000/- directions issued, accordingly.
(Para - 8,17, 18)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)
List of Cases cited:

1. Abhyudya Sanstha Vs U.O.I., (2011) 6 SCC
145,

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

3. G. Narayanaswamy Reddy Vs Govt. of
Karnataka (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 Union of India & ors., (2011)7
SCC 69,

7. Kishore Samrite Vs St. of Uttar Pradesh &
ors., (2013) 2 SCC 398.

8. ABCD Vs Union of India & ors. (2020 Vol. 2
SCC 52,

9. K.D. Sharma Vs Steel Authority of India
Limited & ors. (2008) 12 SCC 481,

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

11. A. Shanmugam Vs Ariya Kashatriya Rajakula
Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai
Sangam represented by its President & ors.
reported in (2012) 6 SCC 430,

12. Ramjas Foundation Vs U.O.I. (2010 vol. 14
SCC 38).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard Shri H.N. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Abhishek
Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
state-respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred the
present writ petition with the prayer to
quash the order dated 25/26.05.2022 passed
1458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by
the
District
Magistrate,
Bijnor/respondent No.2. A further prayer
has
also
been
made
to
direct
the
respondents to permit the petitioner to
discharge the duties of Gram Pradhan of
Gram Panchayat Baldiya Block Haldaur
District Bijnor.

3. Facts in brief as contained in the
writ petition are that the petitioner was
elected as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat
Baldiya Block Haldaur District Bijnor in
the election held on 19.04.2021. Certain
complaints
were
made
against
the
petitioner regarding work and conduct of
the Panchayat and in this regard a notice
dated 11.04.2022 was issued to the
petitioner
by
the
District
Magistrate
Bijnor/respondent No.2 making allegations
that payment in number heads were made
from One Active Code and the petitioner
was granted fifteen (15) days time to
submit his reply. Though as per notice
dated 11.04.2022, fifteen days time was
going to be expired on 26.04.2022 but in
the meanwhile due to acute angle glaucoma
severe health condition, the petitioner was
going in serious medical treatment and
supervision in a hospital in Bijnor from
15.04.2022
to
15.05.2022.
After
the
aforesaid treatment, the petitioner came at
his house and take a complete two weeks
bed rest and medication. On 31.05.2022
after recovery from his ailment when the
petitioner visited to Bock Development
Office Haldaur, for submission of his reply,
he got information that the order impugned
has already been passed by the respondent
No.2.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for
the petitioner that the order impugned has
been passed without providing opportunity
of hearing as well as submission of reply,
therefore, the order impugned is liable to be
set aside. It is argued that second proviso of
Section 95(1)(g) provides that no action
shall be taken against the Pradhan or
Member of the Gram Panchayat under sub
Section (1(g) of Section 95 of U.P. Gram
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 except after
providing
reasonable
opportunity
of
showing cause to the body or person
concerned, in this view of the matter it is
argued that since no opportunity has been
given to show cause, the order is liable to
be set aside. It is argued that the impugned
order is passed without application of mind
and in casual manner. The Paragraph
Nos.8, 10, 11 are reproduced below:-

8. That as per the notice dated
11.04.2022, the petitioner was required to
submit his reply within Fifteen days from
the date of issuance of the letter which was
expiring on 26.04.2022, bit meanwhile it is
relevant to mention here that due to acute
anple glaucoma severe health condition,
petitioner was going in serious medical
treatment and supervision in a hospital in
Bijnor
from
dated
15.04.2022
to
15.05.2022,
however
after
hospital
treatment petitioner came at his house and
take a complete two wecks bed rest and
medication, so that he can get speedy
recovery from ailment; A true/photocopy of
medical certificate issued by the Nayan
Netra Hospital through concern Doctor
dated 16.05.2022 is being filed herewith
and marked as ANNEXURE NOS. 2 to this
writ petition.

10. That on 31.05.2022, after
recovery from his ailment when the
etitioner was in position to visit Block
Development office, he immediately visited
Block Development Office, Haldaur for
regarding his reply of the notice dated
11.04.2022, but at the same time he
gathered an information that an order by
5 All. Rohit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1459
the District Magistrate, Bijnor has already
been passed under Section 95(1)}(g) its
Proviso
ceasing
his
financial
and
administrative powers on 25/ 26.05.2022)\n
this connection true copy of the impugned
order dated 25/26.05.2022 passed by the
District Magistrate, Bijnor is being filed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO.4
to this writ petition.

11. That the petitioner was served
with
the
impugned
order
dated
25/26.05.2022 on 31.05.2022 at Block itself
while he went to give his reply to the notice
dated 11.04.2022, as well as the impugned
order passed by the District Magistrate,
Bijnor was served to the petitioner on
31.05.2022.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed
by
Sri
Virendra
Yadav,
Block
Development Officer Haldaur Bijnor on
behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.It is
stated in paragraph 11 of the counter
affidavit that the petitioner will not get any
benefit from his Medical Certificate, copy
of which is appended as Annexure No.2 to
the writ petition. It is argued that doctor
advice, bills of medicines etc. were not
submitted by him, therefore, the petitioner
is not entitled for any relief. It is argued
that the petitioner has stated in the
petitioner that he was on bed rest from
15.04.2022
to
15.05.2022
while
the
petitioner has submitted his reply to the
notice dated 11.04.2022 in the office of
District Panchayat Raj Officer Bijnor on
27.04.2022 and along with the aforesaid
reply, he also submitted copy of the Bank
Statement under his signature and stamp on
which the date is mentioned as 19.04.2022,
copy of the reply is appended as Anneexure
No.1 to the counter affidavit. It is argued
that from perusal of the same, it is clear
that the petitioner was healthy from
19.04.2022 to 27.04.2022. In this view of
the matter, it is argued that the petitioner
has not approached this Court with clean
hands, therefore, the petition is liable to
rejected. In paragraph 11 of the counter
affidavit a judgement passed in the case of
Ramjas Foundation Vs. Union of India
reported in (2010) 14 SCC 38 has been
cited and relevant paragraph is also quoted
and on the basis of the same, it is argued
that if a litigant does not come to the Court
with clean hands, he is not entitled to be
heard and indeed, such a person is not
entitled to any relief from any judicial
forum.

6. For rebutting the counter affidavit,
no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the
petitioner, hence the averments made in the
counter affidavit is treated to be true.

7. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

8. From perusal of the record, it
transpires that pursuant to the notice dated
11.04.2022, the petitioner was directed to
submit his reply within fifteen days but
according to the case set up by the
petitioner in the writ petition due to ill
health, he was not able to submit his reply
and when he went to the office of District
Panchayat
Raj
Officer,
Haldaur
on
31.05.2022, then he transpires that the
order has already been passed against him.
In the counter affidavit, copy of the reply
dated
27.04.2022
was
appended
as
Annexure CA1. Apart from the same, there
is clear finding recorded in the order
impugned that the District Magistrate
Bijnor/respondent No.2 that reply has been
duly submitted by the petitioner and after
considering the same, the order impugned
has been passed. The relevant part is
quoted below:-
1460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"क रण िर् ओां नोबटस बनगार् बकय गय थ र्थ
बनगार् क रण िर् ओां नोबटस के सम्िन्ध में ग्र भ प्रध न एवां
सम्िबन्धर् सबचव द्व र अपन स्पष्टीकरण प्रस्र्ुर् बकय । "

9. From perusal of the same, it is clear
that finding regarding filing of the reply in
respect of the show cause notice has been
deliberately and willfully concealed by the
petitioner while filing the present writ
petition.

10. 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.

11. 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,
untrue or misleading. In dealing with
applications for special leave, the Court
5 All. Rohit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1461
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 any relief, interim
or final." (emphasis supplied)
1462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. 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 accusedrespondent 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)

13. 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.

14. 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
5 All. Rohit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1463
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."

15. 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."

16. In the case of A. Shanmugam Vs.
Ariya Kashatriya Rajakula Vamsathu
Madalaya
Nandhavana
Paripalanai
Sangam represented by its President and
others reported in (2012) 6 SCC 430, it is
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the
when
the
Court
finds
falsehoods,
concealment, distortion, obstruction and
confusion in pleadings and documents, the
Court should in addition to full restitution
impose actual realistic cost. The relevant
paragraph 42 and 43 of the aforesaid
judgement is reproduced below:-
1464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

42. The appellant is also guilty of
introducing untenable pleas. The plea 9 of
adverse
possession
which
has
no
foundation or basis in the facts and
circumstances of the case was introduced
to gain undue benefit. The court must be
cautious in granting relief to a party guilty
of deliberately introducing irrelevant and
untenable pleas responsible for creating
unnecessary confusion by introducing such
documents and pleas. These h factors must
be taken into consideration while granting
relief and/or imposing the costs.

43. On the facts of the present
case, the following principles emerge:

43.1. It is the bounden duty of the
court to uphold the truth and do justice.

43.2. Every litigant is expected to
state truth before the law court whether it
is
pleadings,
affidavits
or
evidence.
Dishonest and unscrupulous litigants have
no place in law courts.

43.3. The ultimate object of the
judicial proceedings is to discern the truth
and do justice. It is imperative that
pleadings and all other presentations
before the court should be truthful.

43.4. Once the court discovers
falsehood,
concealment,
distortion,
obstruction or confusion in pleadings and
documents, the court should in addition to
full restitution impose appropriate costs.
The court must ensure that there is no
incentive for wrongdoer in the temple of
justice. Truth is the foundation of justice
and it has to be the common endeavour of
all to uphold the truth and no one should
be permitted to pollute the stream of
justice."

17. 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.

18. For the reasons mentioned above,
in my opinion, the present petition deserves
to be dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-.

19. Ordered accordingly.

20. 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.
----------
5 All. The Joint Director Agriculture (Extension) & Ors. Vs. Sri Chhote Lal
1465
(2023) 5 ILRA 1465
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ-C No. 18666 of 2017

The Joint Director Agriculture (Extension)
& Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Sri Chhote Lal ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Vivek Shandilya, C.S.C., Sri Dhananjai
Singh (S.C.)

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Rudra Pratap Singh, Sri Anil Kumar
Yadav, Sri Sudhanshu Narain

A. Civil Law - U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947
-
Section
6(4)
,
4K,
6NReinstatement- the case of the petitioners is
to the effect that the engagement of the
respondent-workman as a labour was under a
temporary arrangement for the purposes of
working under the Rice Scheme which did not
remain operative after 1987 and, therefore,
consequential termination of the services of the
respondent workman was not illegal- that
reference was made at a very belated stage of
10-11 years after the termination and there
being no finding by the Labour Court in the
impugned award as to whether the respondent
was or was not gainfully employed during the
intervening period or thereafter, I find that the
reinstatement with 25% back-wages along with
continuity in past service was not justifiedHowever, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, a consolidated and lump sum amount of
compensation could have served the purpose to
console the respondent whose services were
terminated, not only in the light of the
documents but also considering his service book
which describe the nature of his appointment
with all other aspects associated with itconsidering the nature of the interim order
dated 25.05.2017 passed in the present petition,
in pursuance whereof a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
was deposited by the petitioners out of which a
sum of Rs.2,00,000/- has admittedly been
released in favour of the respondent.(Para 1 to
48)

The writ petition is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P. thru Secy Irrigation Vs Mohd Rais
(2021) 169 FLR 520

2. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Uttam Singh (2021) AIR
SC 3909

3. Chairman, Town Area & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. (2013) 11 ADJ 197

4. St. of Karnataka & anr. Vs Ravi Kumar (2009)
13 SCC 746

5. Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank
Vs Neelam (2005) 5 SCC 91

6.
Assistant
Engineer,
Rajasthan
State
Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub Division, Kota
Vs Madan Lal (2013) 14 SCC 543

7. Nagar Mahapalika Vs St. of U.P. & ors..
(2006) 5 SCC 127

8. Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs Surinder
Kumar (2006) 5 SCC 173

9. Haryana State Electronics Development Corp.
Ltd. Vs Mamni (2006) 9 SCC 434

10. Uttaranchal Forest Development Corp. Vs
M.C. Joshi (2007) 9 SCC 353

11. G.D.A. & anr. Vs Ashok Kumar & anr. (2008)
4 SCC 261

12. Telecom District Manager Vs Keshab Deb,
reported in 2008 (8) SCC 402

13. Jagbir Singh Vs Haryana State Agriculture
Marketing Board (2009) 15 SCC 327

14. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Vs
Laxmi Kant Gupta (2009) 16 SCC 562