# Shiv Lochan v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 5
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-01-07
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 274 of 2010
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-lochan-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41505
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Art.
226-Writ
jurisdiction-person
invoking
extraordinary jurisdiction must be with
clean hand-clean hearted-concealment
of dismissal of earlier petition as well as
Special Appeal-dis entitled the petitioner
for any sympathy-petitioner also guiltyof filing false affidavit-only dismissal will
not be substantial justice-but dismissal
of writ petition with exemplary cost of
Rs.25000/-proper.

Held: Para 10

A litigant who has approached this Court
in extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction
with unclean hands, his conduct makes
him liable to pay an exemplary cost for
abusing the process of the Court besides
wasting precious time of the Court which
could have been utilized for other more
delinquent
employee
serving
cases.
Moreover, he is also guilty of swearing a
false affidavit. Thus the petitioner must
be saddled with the liability of heavy
cost so that in future such thing may not
recur.
Case Law discussed:
(2006)2 SCC 541, 2003(Suppl.) 3 SCR 352,
AIR 2005 SC 3110, AIR 2005 SC 3330, JT
2004(1) SC 88, AIR 1964 SC 345, (2003)9 SCC

## Text

1 All] Shiv Lochan V. State of U.P. and others
5
account of the fact that they had competed
and qualified along with the members of
the general category. For the same reason,
all the decisions relied on by the writ
petitioner are clearly distinguishable and
they do not support the writ petitioner's
contention.

14. However, we hasten to add that
appointment of a large number of
candidates belonging to the reserved
category in the general category on merit,
may be a ground to reconsider the policy
of reservation, but it cannot be said that
those members of the reserved category
who have been appointed on merit, in the
face of the language of Section 3 (6) of
the Act, 1994, have to be counted
amongst the members of the reserved
category.

15. We are of the opinion that the
consideration of the matter by the learned
Single Judge does not suffer from any
error calling for interference in this
appeal.

16. We do not find any merit in the
appeal and it is dismissed, accordingly.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.01.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 274 of 2010

Shiv Lochan

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.C. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India-Art.
226-Writ
jurisdiction-person
invoking
extraordinary jurisdiction must be with
clean hand-clean hearted-concealment
of dismissal of earlier petition as well as
Special Appeal-dis entitled the petitioner
for any sympathy-petitioner also guiltyof filing false affidavit-only dismissal will
not be substantial justice-but dismissal
of writ petition with exemplary cost of
Rs.25000/-proper.

Held: Para 10

A litigant who has approached this Court
in extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction
with unclean hands, his conduct makes
him liable to pay an exemplary cost for
abusing the process of the Court besides
wasting precious time of the Court which
could have been utilized for other more
delinquent
employee
serving
cases.
Moreover, he is also guilty of swearing a
false affidavit. Thus the petitioner must
be saddled with the liability of heavy
cost so that in future such thing may not
recur.
Case Law discussed:
(2006)2 SCC 541, 2003(Suppl.) 3 SCR 352,
AIR 2005 SC 3110, AIR 2005 SC 3330, JT
2004(1) SC 88, AIR 1964 SC 345, (2003)9 SCC
401.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. This is not only a frivolous and
mischievous petition but also apparently
the petitioner has approached this Court
with unclean hands by concealing the
material facts.

2. Though the writ petition has been
drafted in an innocuous manner, a simple
reading of paragraphs 4 and 5 shows that
he was initially appointed as Assistant
Teacher in Maharana Pratap Purva
Madhyamik Vidyalaya Punapar Bhatauli,
6 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
District Azamgarh (Presently District
Mau)
on
25th
August,
1977
and
respondent No.5 issued approval letter on
25th March, 1982 in respect to the
appointment of the petitioner. Para 6
further shows that respondent No.5 also
issued another letter on 12th January, 1983
in respect to the appointment of teachers
who were appointed before permanent
recognition and granted approval in
respect of the appointment of four
teachers including the respondent No.8,
ignoring the petitioner and experience
certificate claimed to be obtained by the
petitioner in 1995 and thereafter he has
mentioned that Maharana Pratap Purva
Madhyamik Vidyalaya Punapar Bhatauli,
Mau was upgraded as Uchcha Prathmik
Vidyalaya i.e. Junior High School in
December, 1996. Again he has said that
the respondent No.5 granted approval to
the petitioner on 30.12.1996. The relief
sought in the writ petition is that the
petitioner should be given appointment to
the post of Head Master in the concerned
institution which has been mentioned by
the petitioner's counsel as Maharana
Pratap
Purva
Madhyamik
Vidyalaya
Punapar Bhatauli, Mau.

3. However, on a closer scrutiny it is
evident that the petitioner was initially
appointed as Assistant Teacher in a
privately managed recognized junior
primary school i.e. Maharana Pratap
Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Punapar
Bhatauli, Azamgarh on 25th August, 1977
(Annexure - 2 to the writ petition) but on
25th March, 1982 he was appointed on
purely adhoc/temporary basis as Assistant
Teacher in Junior Basic School of Basic
Shiksha Parishad by the District Basic
Education Officer, Azamgarh. In order to
join pursuant to the appointment letter
dated 25th March, 1982, the petitioner left
his service from Maharana Pratap Purva
Madhyamik Vidyalaya Punapar Bhatauli,
Mau and joined at Junior Basic School,
Azamgarh therein. Later on at some point
of time when Maharana Pratap Purva
Madhyamik Vidyalaya Punapar Bhatauli,
Mau
was
upgraded,
the
petitioner
somehow obtained some documents in
order to lay his claim, after more than a
decade,
in
Maharana
Pratap
Purva
Madhyamik Vidyalaya Punapar Bhatauli,
Mau claiming seniority with effect from
his initial appointment i.e. 25th August,
1977.

4. It appears that based on
documents obtained by the petitioner later
on, he approached the Director of
Education claiming that he is working at
the institution "Maharana Pratap Purva
Madhyamik Vidyalaya Punapar Bhatauli,
Mau" and is not getting salary and then
filed writ petition No.14472 of 2001
which was disposed of by this Court on
18th April, 2001 directing the concerned
authority to decide the matter after giving
opportunity. An order was passed on 7th
July, 2001 by the Finance and Accounts
Officer, Basic Shiksha, Mau pursuant to
judgment dated 18.4.2001 against which
another writ petition No.38242 of 2004
was filed by some other persons along
with petitioner which was disposed of on
14th December, 2005. It is pursuant
thereto the order dated 11/15th May, 2007
was passed by the Director Basic
Education observing that Shiv Lochan,
the present petitioner had left the
institution i.e. Maharana Pratap Purva
Madhyamik
Vidyalaya,
Punapur,
Bhatauli, Mau long back and could not
have been permitted to join the said
institution again in 1997. The validity of
the said order dated 11/15.5.2007 was
challenged in writ petition no.27602 of
1 All] Shiv Lochan V. State of U.P. and others
7
2007 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble
Single Judge vide judgement dated 17th
April, 2009 observing as under:

".........Admitted position is that after
petitioner had left the institution he had
no concern with the institution and
another incumbent had been appointed
and had been function. After 14 year
under what contingency he was permitted
to come back in the institution. There is
no provision of adjustment in the
institution as has been sought to be done
in the present case. Entire proceedings
taken in favour of petitioner is void on
this score. Admitted position is that in the
vacancy
of
the
petitioner
another
incumbent had been appointed and
petitioner by no stretch of imagination
could have ipso facto returned and
resume his duty. Return of petitioner
cannot be subscribed in law. View taken
by the Director of Education is totally
correct view, as petitioner was not at all
retaining his lien on earlier post and said
post had already substantively been filled
up and in this background by no stretch of
imagination he could have been absorbed
and adjusted in the institution against any
other vacancy as per U.P. Act No.6 of
1979. There is no provision of absorption/
adjustment there and in case there is fresh
vacancy then fresh selection proceeding
will have to be undertaken."

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
judgement of the Hon'ble Single Judge,
the petitioner preferred Special Appeal
No. (847) of 2009 which has been
dismissed by the Division Bench vide
order dated 30th July, 2009.

6. Without disclosing the above
facts and taking pleadings in a misleading
manner, as pointed out above, this writ
petition has been filed by the petitioner
stating that this is the first writ petition
being filed by him seeking relief for
appointment on the post of Head Master
in the institution concerned i.e. Maharana
Pratap
Purva
Madhyamik
Vidyalaya
Punapar Bhatauli, Mau.

7. In my view by not disclosing the
factum of earlier writ petition no.27602 of
2007 in the present one, the petitioner is
guilty of approaching this Court with
unclean hands and of concealment of
material facts.

8. In Ram Saran Vs. IG of Police,
CRPF and others, (2006) 2 SCC 541, the
Apex Court observed "A person who
seeks equity must come with clean hands.
He, who comes to the court with false
claims, cannot plead equity nor would the
court be justified to exercise equity
jurisdiction in his favour. A person who
seeks equity must act in a fair and
equitable manner. .............."

9. In Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P.
Board of High School and Intermediate
Education and others, 2003 (Suppl.) 3
SCR 352, it was reiterated after referring
to various earlier decisions of the Apex
Court that fraud misrepresentation and
concealment of material fact vitiates all
solemn acts. In State of Andhra Pradesh
& another Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao,
AIR 2005 SC 3110, the Apex Court after
referring to various earlier decisions held
that suppression of a material document
would also amount to a fraud on the
Court. The same view has been reiterated
in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of
Maharashtra & others, AIR 2005 SC
3330. In R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State
of Kerala & others, JT 2004(1) SC 88 the
Apex Court observed that a person, who
8 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
seeks equity, must act in a fair and
equitable manner. In Rajabhai Abdul
Rehman
Munshi
Vs.
Vasudev
Dhanjibhai Mody, AIR 1964 SC 345, it
was held that if there appears on the part
of a person, who has approached the
Court, any attempt to overreach or
mislead the Court by false or untrue
statements
or
by
withholding
true
information which would have a bearing
on the question of exercise of the
discretion, the Court would be justified in
refusing to exercise the discretion or if the
discretion has been exercised in revoking
the leave to appeal granted even at the
time of hearing of the appeal. The same
view was reiterated and followed in Vijay
Syal & another Vs. State of Punjab &
others (2003) 9 SCC 401.

10. A litigant who has approached
this Court in extra ordinary equitable
jurisdiction with unclean hands, his
conduct makes him liable to pay an
exemplary cost for abusing the process of
the Court besides wasting precious time
of the Court which could have been
utilized
for
other
more
delinquent
employee serving cases. Moreover, he is
also guilty of swearing a false affidavit.
Thus the petitioner must be saddled with
the liability of heavy cost so that in future
such thing may not recur.

11. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed
with
cost
quantified
at
Rs.25,000/-. The cost shall be deposited
by the petitioner within two months with
the Registrar General of this Court. In
case of failure by the petitioner to pay the
amount of cost, it shall be recovered as
arrears of land revenue for which the
Registrar General of this Court shall take
appropriate steps.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 428 of 2010

Dr. Kalp Nath Chaubey
...Petitioner
Versus
Information
Commissioner
Central
Information Commission, New Delhi and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.B. Singhal
Sri Akhileshwar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.
Sri R.R. Khan
Sri S.K. Singh

Right to Information Act-2005-Section
20-Penalty for non-supply of required
information
within
time-appellate
authority
without
considering
the
explanation
without
disclosing
any
reason
for
its
satisfaction
about
deliberate delay- imposition of penaltynot sustainable.

Held: Para 16

An authority, when exercises power to
impose penalty, is bound to give reasons
for conclusion. Merely repeating the
words given in the sections does not
satisfy the requirement of law. The
Public Information Officer may have
committed
lapse
bonafidely
or
malafidely, there may or may not be a
reasonable cause but the authority has
to advert to the cause shown by the
officer before imposing penalty, without
adverting to the relevant cause shown
by the Public Information Officer, the
penalty cannot be imposed. It is true
that Right to Information Act, 2005 is a