Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Vipin Sanghi, Manoj Kumar Tiwari, JJ.
Kamal Katiyar - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal Nainital & Anr. - Respondents
Special Appeal No. 462 of 2022
Decided On : 10-01-2023
Suppression of Material Facts - Writ Petition - The court found that there was no suppression of material facts by the appellant and allowed the special appeal, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the writ petition to the learned Single Judge for hearing on its merits.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant had filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Commissioner, Kumaon, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of suppression of material facts and imposition of costs on the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no suppression of material facts by the appellant and allowed the special appeal, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the writ petition to the learned Single Judge for hearing on its merits.
Issues: Suppression of material facts, dismissal of writ petition, imposition of costs on the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant did not suppress any material fact that would have had a bearing on the outcome of the writ petition, and the non-disclosure of the earlier proceedings had no bearing on the decision in the writ petition.
Final Decision: The court allowed the special appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the writ petition to the learned Single Judge for hearing on its merits.
JUDGMENT
Vipin Sanghi, CJ. - Issue notice. Learned counsels appear and accept notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. We have heard learned counsels and proceed to dispose of this special appeal at this stage.
3. The appellant has assailed the order dated 18.11.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (M/S) No.2570 of 2022. The impugned order reads as follows:-
'Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Pandey, the learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State.
Mr. Akshay Joshi, the learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
Heard.
The petitioner has filed this petition by suppressing the material facts. Earlier, the petitioner has already approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1085 of 2022 (M/S) which was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench on 20.05.2022 giving direction to the Commissioner Kumaon to decided the petitioner's application within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order and in the interim order of status quo qua the construction raised by the petitioner shall be maintained.
The writ petition should be dismissed because of the suppression of the material fact.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the High Court Bar Association, Nainital within ten days' hence, failing which same shall be recovered as arrear of land revenue.'
4. The appellant earlier preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No.1085 of 2022 (M/S), which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 20.05.2022. The order passed by the Court was that the representation/ application of the appellant-writ petitioner be decided by the Commissioner, Kumaon. In pursuance of that order, the Commissioner, Kumaon decided the representation/ application made by the appellant, on 08.08.2022,. This order dated 08.08.2022 was put to challenge in the writ petition in question, i.e. Writ Petition (M/S) No.2570 of 2022. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that the appellant-writ petitioner has suppressed from the Court the fact that he had earlier preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No.1085 of 2022 (M/S), which was disposed of on 20.05.2022. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of suppression of material facts and imposition of costs on the appellant.
5. We have heard learned counsels. We have also perused the order dated 08.08.2022, passed by the Commissioner, Kumaon, in pursuance of the order dated 20.05.2022, passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No.1085 of 2022.
6. We cannot agree with the finding returned by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the appellant made any suppression of any material fact, while filing the writ petition, which, if disclosed, would have had a bearing on the outcome of the writ petition.
7. The factum of the appellant having preferred an earlier writ petition, which was disposed of on 20.05.2022 with the direction to the Commissioner, Kumaon, to decide the appellant's representation/ application, was itself noticed in the order dated 08.08.2022, impugned in the writ petition. Therefore, a perusal of the impugned order dated 08.08.2022, in respect whereof, writ petition was preferred, would have disclosed to the Court that the appellant had preferred an earlier writ petition, which was disposed of on 20.05.2022 with a direction to the Commissioner, Kumaon to decide the appellant's representation/ application.
8. The aspect of suppression of facts becomes relevant, if, firstly, those facts are material to determine the lis between the parties, and suppression or misstatement of those facts would have a bearing on the ultimate result of the lis.
9. In the present case, neither of these aspects are present. Firstly, there is factually no suppression by the appellant. Secondly, filing and disposal of the earlier writ petition with a direction to the Commissioner, Kumaon to
Non-disclosure of earlier proceedings is not material if it does not have a bearing on the decision in the current case.
Suppression of material facts disentitles a party to invoke equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
A petitioner must disclose all relevant facts when invoking extraordinary jurisdiction, failure to do so results in dismissal.
A litigant who approaches the court with unclean hands, by concealing material facts, is not entitled to any relief.
Despite suppression of material facts and prior procedural lapses, courts enforce final unchallenged tribunal orders against state authorities as model employers; monthly payments renew causes of act....
Fraud must involve suppression of a material fact that could affect the outcome of legal proceedings; mere claims of fraud are insufficient to warrant review of a judgment.
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
