Kerala High Court Dismisses Writ Petition, Imposes Costs for Suppressing Facts and Fabricating Evidence

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, set aside a single-judge judgment and dismissed a writ petition, penalizing the petitioner with costs of ₹10,000 for committing fraud on the court. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. held that a litigant who approaches the court with "soiled hands" by suppressing material facts and producing fabricated documents is not entitled to any relief under the discretionary writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution.

The court allowed the appeal filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board against a single-judge order that had directed the regularization of service for P.R. Unnikrishnan, a 'Poojapattu' employee.

Case Background

The case originated from a writ petition filed by P.R. Unnikrishnan seeking regularization of his service as a Poojapattu in Nangiarkulangara Devaswom from his initial appointment date of December 19, 1991. He was appointed as a 'department nominee' in a 'karanma' (hereditary) post because no member from the designated karanma family was available to perform the duties. While his probation was declared in 2004, he was not granted the status and pay scale of a regular employee.

A single judge had previously allowed his petition, directing the Travancore Devaswom Board to regularize his service and grant consequential benefits, reasoning that the Board's inaction in cancelling the karanma right should not prejudice the employee.

Arguments of the Parties

Travancore Devaswom Board (Appellant): The Board argued that Mr. Unnikrishnan's appointment was purely temporary and conditional. They presented the original appointment order (Annexure I), which contained a crucial clause stating that his service would be terminated as soon as a rightful claimant from the karanma family became available. The Board contended that Mr. Unnikrishnan had deliberately omitted this clause in the document (Ext.P1) submitted to the court, thereby suppressing a material fact and playing fraud on the court. They further argued that regularization in a karanma post is not possible without first cancelling the hereditary right as per Section 28 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950.

P.R. Unnikrishnan (Respondent): The respondent argued that since his probation was declared, he should be treated as a regular employee. He contended that once a department nominee attains permanent status, the karanma right of the family extinguishes. He also claimed, through a reply affidavit, that no family actually held proven karanma rights for the post in question, citing internal reports.

Court's Analysis and Pivotal Findings

The Division Bench discovered a stark discrepancy between the appointment order submitted by the petitioner (Ext.P1) and the original version produced by the Devaswom Board (Annexure I). The court observed that the petitioner had produced a fabricated document by masking the final paragraph.

The judgment stated:

"The last paragraph of the order dated 19.12.1991 of the Devaswom Commissioner...is conspicuously absent in the true copy of that order marked as Ext.P1 in the writ petition."

The Bench emphasized the sanctity of judicial proceedings and the duty of a litigant to approach the court with clean hands, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India [(2007) 8 SCC 449] . The court reiterated that suppression or concealment of material facts is not advocacy but "a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction."

The court highlighted the following excerpt from its reasoning:

"As stated by Scrutton, L.J, in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 K.B. 486], an applicant who does not come with candid facts and ‘clean breast’ cannot hold a writ of the court with ‘soiled hands’... The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in the disclosure of true, complete and correct facts."

The court also found that the petitioner’s claim was legally untenable, as the karanma right had not been extinguished through the procedure established under Section 28 of the Act. His appointment was, therefore, subject to the conditions mentioned in the original order.

Final Verdict and Implications

The Kerala High Court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the single-judge's decision and dismissing Mr. Unnikrishnan's writ petition. The court imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on him, payable to the Travancore Devaswom Board.

Furthermore, the court directed the Devaswom Board to recover any excess salary and allowances paid to the petitioner on the strength of the now-overturned judgment. The recovery can be initiated through appropriate proceedings, including revenue recovery, if necessary. This judgment serves as a stern reminder that any attempt to mislead the court will not only result in the dismissal of the case but may also attract punitive measures.