Suppression of material facts in court proceedings can lead to dismissal of claims and initiation of contempt proceedings; parties must disclose all relevant details fully and truthfully.

JUDGMENT :

Kamal Khata, J.

1) By this Review Petition, the Petitioner seeks review of the Order dated 8^th February, 2024 based on the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order dated 23^rd August, 2024. The Supreme Court granted liberty to the Petitioner (i) to bring to the notice of this Court her personal claim considering the reliefs sought, and (ii) to challenge the Order to be passed in the Review Petition before the Supreme Court.

2) Mr. Naphade, learned counsel for the Review Petitioner, submits that, in the Writ petition (which came to be dismissed), the Petitioner had sought (a) a direction to the Respondents to allot rehabilitation tenement under the subject slum scheme on the basis of her eligibility reflected in Annexure-II for her residential structure, and (b) arrears of rent towards temporary transit accommodation from 2009 till date. He points out that the Respondents have commenced allotment of rehab tenements to eligible slum dwellers, as the rehab buildings are ready for occupation. The grievance is that, despite repeated requests, no rehab tenement has been allotted to her. There is a genuine apprehension that allotment of all the rehab tenements is completed, the Petitioner will be permanently deprived of her entitlement.

3) Mr. Naphade submits that Respondent No.2, in its Affidavit in reply dated 5^th February 2024, incorrectly stated that, the temporary alternate accommodation was provided to the Petitioner in Room No. G3, Building A/1/4. According to Mr. Naphade, this statement is demonstrably false since Room No.G3 was in fact allotted to Maulana Azad Social & Cultural Association Sanskar Urdu High School (a Trust) which appears independently in Annexure II at serial No.3658 for a non-residential structure. Thus, there exists two distinct entries in the Annexure-II - one in Petitioner’s individual name for a residential structure, and the other in the Trust’s name for non-residential structure. The Trust, in fact, has been provided with two premises, namely, Room No.G3 and Room No.G6. Reliance is placed on the Order dated 19^th April, 2021 passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (“SRA”) on the Trust’s Application for payment of rent, which confirms this position.

4) The grievance raised by Mr. Naphade is that the Court, while passing the impugned Order, failed to verify the allegations by calling upon Respondent No.1 (the Planning Authority) to clarify the false assertion made by Respondent No.2. The request to file a rejoinder with supporting documents to demonstrate that the so-called “transit accommodation” was always earmarked for the School, and not for her, was not considered. The dismissal of her Petition on the ground of suppression of material particulars was therefore unjustified, as the Petitioner and the Trust are two separate entities, each of whom filed independent Writ Petitions.

5) Mr. Naphade further submits that Respondent No. 2’s allegations were not supported by any documentary evidence. On the contrary, material on record shows that (i) the Petitioner was declared eligible for a residential structure in the year 2009, and (ii) the two premises claimed to have been allotted were in fact provided in 2003 and indisputably for the School. Thus, the dismissal of the Petition rested on a false