# Sunil Kumar Srivastava v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 934
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-10
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 9429 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-kumar-srivastava-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-50643
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 226 - Writ - Maintainability -
Suppression of material fact - Petitioner
was fully aware about the order dated
11.4.2023 passed in earlier writ petition,
but he deliberately has not disclosed this
fact, which have direct bearing on the
result of present writ petition - Effect -
Held, a person who conceals material facts
while filing writ petition is not entitled for
any relief from the High Court in exercise
of its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 - Petitioner approaching the
Writ Court must come with clean hands
and must put forward all the facts before
the
Court
without
concealing
or
suppressing anything. (Para 13, 15 and
18)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

36. The respondents are directed to
consider the claim of the petitioner and
pass appropriate orders within three weeks
of presentation of certified copy of this
order, giving him posting at any place
within his home sector. The decision shall
be taken by the competent authority within
a period of four weeks and under any
circumstances on or before 25.08.2023.

37. It is, however, made clear that
until
such
decision
petitioner
would
continue at the present place of posting and
shall be paid salary.

38. The writ petition thus succeeds
and is allowed in above terms.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 934
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ-A No. 9429 of 2023

Sunil Kumar Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Madan Lal Srivastava

A. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 226 - Writ - Maintainability -
Suppression of material fact - Petitioner
was fully aware about the order dated
11.4.2023 passed in earlier writ petition,
but he deliberately has not disclosed this
fact, which have direct bearing on the
result of present writ petition - Effect -
Held, a person who conceals material facts
while filing writ petition is not entitled for
any relief from the High Court in exercise
of its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 - Petitioner approaching the
Writ Court must come with clean hands
and must put forward all the facts before
the
Court
without
concealing
or
suppressing anything. (Para 13, 15 and
18)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs St. Bank of India;
(2007) 8 SCC 449
2. K. D. Sharma Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd.
& ors.; (2008) 12 SCC 481
3. K. Jayaram & ors. Vs Bangalore Development
Authority & ors.; (2022) 12 SCC 815
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava,
petitioner in person and learned Standing
Counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 to
4 as well as Mr. Madan Lal Srivastava,
learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.5.

2. Petitioner in his writ petition has
stated that he has filed a complaint to
District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj
wherein he has mentioned that one Mr.
Arun
Kumar
Mishra
has
obtained
appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher in Bal Kalyan Purv Madhyamik
Vidyalaya,
Buxi
Khurd,
Daraganj,
Prayagraj on the basis of forged documents,
therefore, inquiry may be conducted in the
matter and the appointment of aforesaid
Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra be cancelled.

3. Petitioner appearing in person has
submitted that though cognizance of the
aforesaid
complaint
lodged
by
the
petitioner has been taken by the District
Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj but till
8 All. Sunil Kumar Srivastava Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
935
date the inquiry in the matter has not been
completed, therefore it is in the interest of
justice that a direction be issued by this
Court for completion of the inquiry and
consequential action over the complaint of
the petitioner.

4. Mr. Madan Lal Srivastava, learned
counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5
has
vehemently
submitted
that
the
petitioner while filing the present writ
petition has concealed material facts which
were in his knowledge at the time of filing
of this writ petition and therefore, the writ
petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be
dismissed by this Court as it is well settled
through catena of judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that if petitioner while
filing the writ petition conceals material
facts then he is not entitled for any relief
from the High Court in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.5 has submitted that this
writ petition was listed before this Court on
26.5.2023 and when this fact was brought
to the notice of this Court, then following
order was passed:-

"Vakalatnama as preferred by Sri
Madan Lal Srivastava, learned counsel for
respondent no.5 is taken on record.

Put up this case on 30.05.2023 as
fresh alongwith Writ Petition No.4262 of
2023."

6. Learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.5 has further submitted that
on the complaint of the petitioner, District
Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj has
passed an order on 6.2.2023 whereby
inquiry against Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra has
been instituted and further direction was
given to stop the payment of salary to
aforesaid Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra.

7. It has also been brought to the
notice of this Court that aforesaid Mr. Arun
Kumar Mishra has challenged the order
dated 6.2.2023 passed by District Basic
Education Officer, Prayagraj by filing WritA No.4262 of 2023 wherein he has also
prayed that proceedings arising out of the
complaint submitted by complainant Mr.
Sunil Kumar Srivastava may be quashed.

8. This Court after hearing the
aforesaid Writ-A No.4262 of 2023 has
passed order on 11.4.2023 which is
extracted as under:-

"Heard Shri Anil Bhushan, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Himanshu
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents and Shri Arun Kumar,
learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

The challenge in this writ petition is to
an order dated 6.2.2023 passed by the
respondent No. 3/District Basic Education
Officer,
Prayagraj
whereby
and
whereunder the payment of salary to the
petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher
has been withheld. Prayer for mandamus
directing the respondents not to conduct
further inquiry upon the issue which
already stands decided has also been made.
Further prayer for mandamus directing the
respondents to disburse regular monthly
salary as well as arrears of salary to the
petitioner has also been made.

It is contended by learned counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner possessing
the requisite qualification of High School,
Intermediate and B.T.C., was appointed in
the Institution in the year 1983 and since
then the petitioner is discharging his duties
diligently and has unblemished record.
936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Similar motivated complaints were moved
in the year 2021 which was inquired into by
the Block Education Officer, who found the
complaint to be fabricated and submitted
his report on 2.11.2021. It is further
contended that the present complaint was
filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava in
counterblast as an FIR was lodged by the
Manager of the Institution against Smt.
Pushpa Srivastava, wife of the complainant
for
getting
the
documents
lost
and
fabricating forged documents (Annexure-6
to the writ petition). The inquiry has been
initiated on the motivated complaint and
during the pendency of inquiry, the salary
of the petitioner has been stopped.

This Court finds that the petitioner
was appointed in the year 1983. The
petitioner has annexed the appointment
letter and the application form in which the
qualification of the petitioner is mentioned
that he has passed BTC (Annexure-2 to the
writ petition). No concrete finding has yet
been returned as regards the non eligibility
of the petitioner for appointment on the
post of Assistant Teacher.

In the opinion of the Court, the salary
of the petitioner cannot be withheld in
absence of any concrete finding regarding
his non eligibility to the post in question. It
is not disputed that the petitioner has been
continuously discharging his duties on the
post of Assistant Teacher in the Institution
in question.

Matter requires consideration.

Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for
the respondent No. 3 prays for and is
granted three weeks' time to file counter
affidavit.
Learned
Standing
Counsel
representing the State-respondent Nos 1
and 2, if so advised, may file counter
affidavit in the meanwhile.

List this case after expiry of aforesaid
period.

Until further orders of this Court, an
interim
mandamus
is
issued
to
the
respondent No. 3 to disburse the current
salary of the petitioner month to month, as
and when the same falls due."

9. It has also been brought to the
notice of this Court that even Mr. Sunil
Kumar Srivastava, who is the petitioner in
the present writ petition, has filed an
application for his impleadment in Writ-A
No.4262 of 2023 on 3.3.2023 on which this
Court has passed an order dated 15.3.2023
whereby his application was directed to be
listed with previous papers at an early date.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent
No.5
has
vehemently
submitted that Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava
in his present writ petition i.e. Writ-A
No.9429 of 2023 has not disclosed
regarding filing of the aforementioned
Writ-A No.4262 of 2023 (Arun Kumar
Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others) and
further has also not disclosed the aforesaid
order dated 11.4.2023 passed in Writ-A
No.4262 of 2023 though he has already put
in appearance in the aforesaid writ petition
by filing impleadment application.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.5 has further argued that
petitioner Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava was
fully aware about the filing of Writ-A
No.4262 of 2023 and the order dated
11.4.2023 passed in the said writ petition
but he has deliberately concealed the said
facts while filing his present writ petition
i.e. Writ-A No.9429 of 2023. It has been
further stressed upon that the intention of
Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava is crystal clear
that by concealing material facts he has
made an attempt to obtain an order from
this Court for conclusion of the inquiry and
consequential
action
pursuant
to
his
8 All. Sunil Kumar Srivastava Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
937
complaint filed against aforesaid Mr. Arun
Kumar Mishra.

12. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsels appearing for the parties and I find
that petitioner Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava
was fully aware about filing of Writ-A
No.4262 of 2023 (Arun Kumar Mishra vs.
State of U.P. and others) and the order
dated 11.4.2023 passed in the said writ
petition but he deliberately has not
disclosed those facts in his present writ
petition i.e. Writ-A No.9429 of 2023.

13. It is well settled through catena of
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
as well as judgments of this Court that a
person who conceals material facts while
filing writ petition is not entitled for any
relief from the High Court in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank
of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449 has held that
in exercising power under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the High Court is
not just a court of law, but is also a court of
equity and a person who invokes the High
Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, is duty bound to place all the
facts
before
the
court
without
any
reservation. If there is suppression of
material facts or twisted facts have been
placed before the High Court then it will be
fully justified in refusing to entertain
petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Relevant portion of the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. v.
State Bank of India (supra) is extracted as
under:-

"32. It is thus clear that though the
appellant Company had approached the
High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution, it had not candidly stated all
the facts to the Court. The High Court is
exercising discretionary and extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Over and above, a Court of
Law is also a Court of Equity. It is,
therefore, of utmost necessity that when a
party approaches a High Court, he must
place all the facts before the Court without
any reservation. If there is suppression of
material facts on the part of the applicant
or twisted facts have been placed before the
Court, the Writ Court may refuse to
entertain the petition and dismiss it without
entering into merits of the matter.

33. The object underlying the above
principle has been succinctly stated by
Scrutton, L.J., in R v. Kensington Income
Tax Commrs. in the following words:

"It has been for many years the rule of
the Court, and one which it is of the
greatest importance to maintain, that when
an applicant comes to the Court to obtain
relief on an ex parte statement he should
make a full and fair disclosure of all the
material facts - facts, not law. He must not
misstate the law if he can help it- the Court
is supposed to know the law. But it knows
nothing about the facts, and the applicant
must state fully and fairly the facts, and the
penalty by which the Court enforces that
obligation is that if it finds out that the facts
have not been fully and fairly stated to it,
the Court will set aside, any action which it
has taken on the faith of the imperfect
statement".

34. It is well settled that a prerogative
remedy is not a matter of course. In
exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a
Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the
conduct of the party who is invoking such
jurisdiction. If the applicant does not
938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disclose full facts or suppresses relevant
materials
or
is
otherwise
guilty
of
misleading the Court, the Court may
dismiss the action without adjudicating the
matter. The rule has been evolved in larger
public interest to deter unscrupulous
litigants from abusing the process of Court
by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ
jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true,
complete and correct facts. If the material
facts are not candidly stated or are
suppressed or are distorted, the very
functioning of the writ courts would
become impossible."

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
its judgment rendered in the case of K. D.
Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India
Limited and others, reported in (2008) 12
SCC 481 has held that 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 since prerogative writs
mentioned therein are issuedfor doing
substantial justice, therefore, it is of utmost
necessity that petitioner approaching the
Writ Court must come with clean hands and
must put forward all the facts before the
Court without concealing or suppressing
anything and if there is no candid
disclosure of relevant and material facts or
the petitioner is guilty of misleading the
Court, his writ petition may be dismissed at
the threshold without considering the
merits of the claim. Relevant portion of the
judgment rendered in the case of K. D.
Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited
and others (supra) is extracted as under:-

"36. A prerogative remedy is not a
matter
of
course.
While
exercising
extraordinary power a Writ Court would
certainly bear in mind the conduct of the
party who invokes the jurisdiction of the
Court. If the applicant makes a false
statement or suppresses material fact or
attempts to mislead the Court, the Court
may dismiss the action on that ground
alone and may refuse to enter into the
merits of the case by stating "We will not
listen to your application because of what
you have done". The rule has been evolved
in
larger
public
interest
to
deter
unscrupulous litigants from abusing the
process of Court by deceiving it.

37.
In
Kensington
Income
Tax
Commrs,
Viscount
Reading,
C.J.
observed:(KB pp.495-96)

"... 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 applicant was not candid and did not
fairly state the facts, the Court ought, for
its own protection and to prevent an abuse
of its process, to refuse to proceed any
further with the examination of the merits.
This is a power inherent in the Court, but
one which should only be used in cases
which bring conviction to the mind of the
Court that it has been deceived. Before
coming to this conclusion a careful
examination will be made of the facts as
they are and as they have been stated in the
applicant's affidavit, and everything will be
heard that can be urged to influence the
view of the Court when it reads the affidavit
and knows the true facts. But if the result of
this examination and hearing is to leave no
doubt that this Court has been deceived,
then it will refuse to hear anything further
from the applicant in a proceeding which
has only been set in motion by means of a
misleading affidavit". (emphasis supplied)

38. The above principles have been
accepted in our legal system also. As
persettled law, the party who invokes the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 32 of a High Court under
8 All. Sunil Kumar Srivastava Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
939
Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed
to be truthful, frank and open. He must
disclose all material facts without any
reservation even if they are against him. He
cannot be allowed to play `hide and seek'
or to `pick and choose' the facts he likes to
disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not
to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very
basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in
disclosure of true and complete (correct)
facts. If material facts are suppressed or
distorted, the very functioning of Writ
Courts
and
exercise
would
become
impossible. The petitioner must disclose all
the facts having a bearing on the relief
sought without any qualification. This is
because, "the Court knows law but not
facts".

39.
If
the
primary
object
as
highlighted in Kensington Income Tax
Commissioners is kept in mind, an
applicant who does not come withcandid
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,
maneuvering
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."

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its
judgment rendered in the case of K.
Jayaram
and
others
vs.
Bangalore
Development
Authority
and
others,
reported in (2022) 12 SCC 815 has held that
if petitioner while filing writ petition conceals
material facts from the Court, then he is not
entitled for any relief in exercise of
extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Relevant portion of the judgment rendered by
the Supreme Court in K. Jayaram and others
vs. Bangalore Development Authority and
others (supra) is extracted as under:-

"14. It is necessary for us to state here
that in order to check multiplicity of
proceedings pertaining to the same subjectmatter and more importantly to stop the
menace of soliciting inconsistent orders
through
different
judicial
forums
by
suppressing
material
facts
either
by
remaining silent or by making misleading
statements in the pleadings in order to escape
the liability of making a false statement, we
are of the view that the parties have to
disclose the details of all legal proceedings
and litigations either past or present
concerning any part of the subject-matter of
dispute which is within their knowledge. In
case, according to the parties to the dispute,
no legal proceedings or court litigations was
or is pending, they have to mandatorily state
so in their pleadings in order to resolve the
dispute between the parties in accordance
with law.
15. In the instant case, since the appellants
have not disclosed the filing of the suit and
its dismissal and also the dismissal of the
appeal against the judgment of the civil
court, the appellants have to be non-suited
on the ground of suppression of material
facts. They have not come to the court with
clean hands and they have also abused the
process of law. Therefore, they are not
entitled for the extraordinary, equitable and
discretionary relief."
940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. I find that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has categorically laid down the law
that the petitioner while approaching the
High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India must disclose all the
relevant facts in his writ petition and if
petitioner does not disclose the relevant
facts and material, then he is not entitled
for any relief from the High Court in
exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and such writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.

18. In the present case, petitioner at
the time of filing of the writ petition was
fully aware about the filing of Writ-A
No.4262 of 2023 (Arun Kumar Mishra vs.
State of U.P. and others) and was also
aware of the order dated 11.4.2023 passed
by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition
but deliberately he has not disclosed the
said facts in the present writ petition.
Petitioner has not disclosed the aforesaid
facts in his writ petition only with an
intention to somehow obtain an order from
this court for conclusion of the inquiry and
consequential
action
pursuant
to
his
complaint. Since petitioner has concealed
material facts which have direct bearing on
the result of this writ petition, as such I am
of the view that petitioner is not entitled for
any relief from this Court in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India and the present
writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

19. I further find that when the facts
of the present writ petition are seen in the
light of the aforementioned law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then it
becomes crystal clear that petitioner has
concealed material facts while filing
present writ petition before this Court and
therefore, this writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.

20. In view of the aforesaid reasons
and the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, mentioned herein above,
present writ petition filed by the petitioner
is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 940
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 9955 of 2023

Km. Haseen Bi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ikram Ahmad, Sri Asar Mukhtar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C, Sri Pankaj Srivastava

A. Service Law - Family Pension -
Entitlement of daughter after death of
widow - Requirement to produce the
succession certificate issued by District
Judge
-
Permissibility
-
GO
dated
08.08.1986 - Para 9 - GO dated 03.12.2012
- Under the GOs, the succession certificate
can be required to be furnished, only when
the the department was not able to verify
the facts regarding claim of the petitioner
that he is dependent of the deceased
employee - Non-compliance thereof - Effect
- Held, there is no such consideration
accorded in the order impugned to compel
the authority to ask the petitioner to furnish
succession certificate - High Court remitted
the matter to the authority to consider the
claim in the light of GO dated 08.08.1986
and 03.12.2012. (Para 5 and 10)