Concealment of crucial facts in a legal proceeding can lead to an incorrect judgment and have serious legal consequences.

Ravi S.Dhavan, J.

1. But for the candid acknowledgement of learned Counsel for the contesting respondent certain facts which were not disclosed in the writ petition, the course of this case would have been very different and perhaps a very harsh order would have descended on respondent Nagendra Nath Pandey. The Court had brought certain circumstances yesterday to the knowledge of learned Counsel so that he could check for himself whether the proceeding in the writ petition may be the result a judgment having been obtained by fraud and that the High Court in its letters patent appellate jurisdiction must avoid this judgment on the principle referred to u/s. 44 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

2. The contesting respondent apparently fond of litigation so much so that he has harmed himself in his employment He has invited departmental proceedings and he was dismissed from service. But because of the judgment in the writ petition he saw reinstatement. The travesty of justice is that today the record acknowledges that the contesting respondent concealed and suppressed facts from the High Court. By this time a public sector undertaking has been harmed and harassed and the High Court has been misled in writing judgment in his favour when the most crucial document was virtually kept away from the Court and it surfaces in this appeal on a affidavit of the National Small Industries Corporation Limited. The document was. always and at every given time within the personal knowledge of the respondent. The entire case or the litigation rests on this document. If the Appellant Corporation had not been a public sector undertaking the respondent would have been relegated to suit proceedings.

3. The issue brought in the writ petition:

4. The contesting respondent filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 4352 of 1990 making out a sensational case that the National Small Industries Corporation was harassing him and evicting his family members from a premises when he was transferred out from Bombay to Patna. The reference was to a flat which had been allotted to the contesting respondent by the Corporation as part of the conditions of service. On the other hand the respondent contended that there was no allotment and in fact, the respondent occupied the flat under a higher purchase agreement agreement, and if he continues to pay installment he would in fact become an owner of this flat. Instead of the respondent being evicted from the flat the Corporation was rejected out of its case as if it had taken unfair stand. The departmental proceedings taken against the respondent for illegally occupied the flat on a extended stay were held to be illegal and unjustified. The dismissal of the respondent on the ground of a service misdemenour was held to be illegal. The departmental proceedings were quashed. Consequently, instead or being evicted the respondent virtually continued to hold possession of the flat.

5. The case of the Corporation:

6. The Corporation places facts before this Appellate Division that the petitioner-respondent concealed that he was a licensee under an agreement of leave and licence by which he had received an allotment of the flat on 7th August 1976. The respondent could live in the flat as long as he was posted in Bombay and in the event of his service being transferred out of Bombay he was to forthwith hand over possession of the premises to the Corporation. The respondent concealed this document in the writ petition.

7. As observed at the rising of the Court yesterday the Court cautioned learned Counsel for the contesting respondent that he may see the record and then submit his defence, accordingly.

8. Today, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent Mr. R.N. Mukhopadhaya submitted that he can hardly submit more as he has verified from the contesting respondent who now acknowledges that the 7th October 1976 allotment order, in fact, does bind him. On the basis of this document (a he had been allotted a flat as a license and