Point of Law : Making a false statement on oath is an offence punishable under Section 181 of the IPC while furnishing false information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person is punishable under Section 182 of the IPC. These offences by virtue of Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code can be taken cognizance of by any court only upon a proper complaint in writing as stated in said Section.

ORDER :

RAJESH BINDAL, CJ.

1. The present writ petition has been filed alleging that the respondent no.7 has raised illegal construction by encroaching the Government land and the same be directed to be removed.

2. Learned counsel for the official respondents submitted that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of material facts.

3. The petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition bearing Misc. Bench No. 21352 of 2019 through its Secretary raising the issue that respondents no. 7 therein has been wrongly granted recognition 2 P.I.L. CIVIL No. - 26081 of 2020

for running the school by producing documents showing it to be the owner of the land, though it was not the owner, however, the aforesaid writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to pursue other remedy available for the aforesaid purpose in law.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the present writ petition has been filed through Vice President concealing the factum of filing the earlier petition, though, the property in question and the school are same.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to explain the position stating that issues sought to be raised in both the petitions are different, hence, the fact of filing of the earlier petition was not mentioned.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the petition deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of concealment of material facts. It is not in dispute that the earlier writ petition was filed by the petitioner through its Secretary raising certain issues with reference to the same land and the allegations that the respondent no.7 had been given recognition of the school by producing forged documents. The aforesaid petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.08.2019 with liberty to the petitioner to pursue any other remedy available in law.

7. The present petition has been filed through Vice President concealing the factum of filing of earlier petition by the petitioner which pertains to the same property and allegations against the respondent no.7.

8. As there is material concealment of facts in the present petition, the same deserves to be dismissed.

9. As to how a litigant who conceals material facts from the Court, has to be dealt with, has been gone through by Hon'ble the Supreme Court time and again and the consistent opinion is that he is not entitled even to be heard on merits.

10. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and others, (2008) 12 SCC 481 it was observed:

"39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs., (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA) is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid 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, manoeuvring 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." In Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and others, (1995) 3 SCC 757 filing of a false affidavit was the basis for initiation of action in contempt jurisdiction and the concerned persons were punished."

11. In Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India, (2011) 6 SCC 145, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while declining relief to the petitioners therein, who did not approach the court with clean hands, opined as under:

"16. In our view, the appellants deserve to be