Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRAKASH PADIA, J.
Rohit Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others – Respondents
Writ - C No.17496 of 2022
Decided on : 11-04-2023
U.P. Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Section 95(1)(g) - Gram Pradhan - Permit to discharge duties - Quash order - Supressio veri, expression faisi - Prayer to quash order passed by respondent No.2 - Prayer made to direct respondents to permit petitioner to discharge duties of Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat – A litigant, who attempts to pollute stream of justice or who touches pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. [Para 17]
Finding of the Court: It transpires that pursuant to notice petitioner was directed to submit his reply within fifteen days but according to case set up by petitioner in petition due to ill health, he was not able to submit his reply and when he went to office of District Panchayat Raj Officer then he transpires that order has already been passed against him - In last 40 years, values have gone down and now a litigants can go to any extent to mislead court - They have no respect for truth - Principle has been evolved to meet challenge posed by this new breed of litigants - Now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute stream of justice or who touches pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final - Suppression of material facts from court of law, is actually playing fraud with court - Maxim supressio veri, expression faisi, i.e. suppression of truth is equivalent to expression of falsehood, gets attracted.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Abhishek Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for state-respondents.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 25/26.05.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Bijnor/respondent No.2. A further prayer has also been made to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to discharge the duties of Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Baldiya Block Haldaur District Bijnor.
3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner was elected as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Baldiya Block Haldaur District Bijnor in the election held on 19.04.2021. Certain complaints were made against the petitioner regarding work and conduct of the Panchayat and in this regard a notice dated 11.04.2022 was issued to the petitioner by the District Magistrate Bijnor/respondent No.2 making allegations that payment in number heads were made from One Active Code and the petitioner was granted fifteen (15) days time to submit his reply. Though as per notice dated 11.04.2022, fifteen days time was going to be expired on 26.04.2022 but in the meanwhile due to acute angle glaucoma severe health condition, the petitioner was going in serious medical treatment and supervision in a hospital in Bijnor from 15.04.2022 to 15.05.2022. After the aforesaid treatment, the petitioner came at his house and take a complete two weeks bed rest and medication. On 31.05.2022 after recovery from his ailment when the petitioner visited to Bock Development Office Haldaur, for submission of his reply, he got information that the order impugned has already been passed by the respondent No.2.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed without providing opportunity of hearing as well as submission of reply, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. It is argued that second proviso of Section 95(1)(g) provides that no action shall be taken against the Pradhan or Member of the Gram Panchayat under sub Section (1(g) of Section 95 of U.P. Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 except after providing reasonable opportunity of showing cause to the body or person concerned, in this view of the matter it is argued that since no opportunity has been given to show cause, the order is liable to be set aside. It is argued that the impugned order is passed without application of mind and in casual manner. The Paragraph Nos.8, 10, 11 are reproduced below:-
10. That on 31.05.2022, after recovery from his ailment when the etitioner was in position to visit Block Development office, he immediately visited Block Development Office, Haldaur for regarding his reply of the notice dated 11.04.2022, but at the same time he gathered an information that an order by the District Magistrate, Bijnor has already been passed under Section 95(1)}(g) its Proviso ceasing his financial and administrative powers on 25/ 26.05.2022)\n this connection true copy of the impugned order dated 25/26.05.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Bijnor is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE
A litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material fact....
A litigant who approaches the court with unclean hands, by concealing material facts, is not entitled to any relief.
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....
Suppression of material facts and failure to join necessary parties render a writ petition untenable; fraud on the court mandates dismissal of the case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
