Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1930
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI G. S. AHLUWALIA, J
SHRI SABLA HASAN – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 27200 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Ashfaq Khan
For the Respondents: Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar, Shri Maroof Ullah Siddiqui
Petitioner was dismissed for suppressing material facts regarding ownership, violating the principle of 'clean hands' in seeking equitable relief.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition seeking permission to conduct religious activities at a protected monument - Petitioner suppressed material facts in previous litigation regarding ownership - Court held that petitioner acted in bad faith and dismissed the writ. (Paras 8, 12, 18, 22)
(B) Legal Principle - A litigant must come to court with clean hands; suppression of material facts can lead to dismissal of petitions. (Paras 12, 17, 18)
(C)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought permission to conduct Urs but failed to disclose past claims of ownership over the property. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that without addressing past orders dismissing petitions for similar relief, the current petition was rendered infructuous. (Paras 8, 22)
Issues: Whether the petitioner has the right to seek relief for organizing religious functions without disclosing material facts related to property ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: The act of suppression of facts undermines the integrity of the petitioner's claim.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks relief under constitutional article. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of claims regarding ownership and permissions. (Para 4 , 5 , 21) |
| 3. court ruling on suppression of facts undermines claim. (Para 7 , 8 , 12 , 18) |
| 4. final decision on petition dismissal. (Para 22 , 23) |
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India , has been filed seeking following relief(s):-
“1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the Respondent authorities to consider the grievances of the petitioners and allow the petitioner and other local people to perform the religious activity (Urs and Namaz) in the interest of justice.
2. That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may be passed in the interest of justice.”
2. It is the case of petitioner that the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 20.02.2014 passed in “In the matter of Encroachment over Tomb of Mohammad Ghaus Vs. The State of MP & Others” in WP. No.1692/2010 (PIL)” had directed that the State Government and Union of India shall not permit the organizer to hold any urs or other activities without permission of Archaeological Survey Of India within the territory of protected monuments and if any permission be granted, the provisions of Act of 1958 and Rules of 1959 shall be taken into consideration by the authorities and it shall also be kept in mind that there should not be any damage caused to the monuments.
3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner wants to organize urs on 14.03.2025, therefore, Archaeological Survey Of India may be directed to grant permission to organize urs.
4. Respondents have filed their return and have disputed the bona fides of petitioner to file this petition. It is submitted that petitioner had also filed Case No.A-10/2020 before the M.P. Waqf Tribunal, Bhopal regarding claim of ownership of centrally protected tomb of Mohammad Ghaus and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal in favour of Archaeological Survey Of India by order dated 31.10.2022. It is also submitted that in the year 2024, the Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey Of India, by order dated 14.03.2024 had refused to grant permission to organize urs. It is submitted that the aforesaid order dated 14.03.2024 has not been challenged.
5. In reply, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that SDO (Revenue), Lashkar, District Gwalior (M.P.) by order dated 17.02.2025 passed in Case No.03/B-121/2024-25 had held that dispute is going between petitioner and Mujabir Jaul Hasan and accordingly, it was directed that Mujabir Jaul Hasan shall perform the work of cleaning, opening of doors, burning of loban, kabraposhi etc. and the remaining work will be performed by Sajjadanasheen. It is submitted that petitioner who is working as Sajjadanasheen has been granted right to close the Dargah and hand over the keys to the guard of Archaeological Survey Of India and shall open the Dargah on the next day by taking the keys from the aforesaid guard. It was further directed that Tahsildar, Lashkar, Revenue Inspector/Halka Patwari will monitor the said work. Tahsildar, Lashkar, will prepare the list of articles kept inside the Dargah and would ensure that the donation box is opened at the end of month in the presence of Sajjadanasheen/Mujabir as well as Revenue Department. It is submitted that by virtue of that liberty petitioner has filed the present petition. However, it was fairly conceded that petitioner has not disclosed the fact that the suit filed by him before the M.P. State Waqf Tribunal for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of Dargah Hazrat Shekh Mohammad Ghaus.
6. Intervention has been filed by one Salim Khan. It is submitted by Shri Siddiqui that post of Sajjadanasheen and Mujabir have been abolished and they have been merged in the post of Mutawali who can be appointed by Board and thus petitioner has no right or title in the property. Even the SDO has wrongly passed order dated 17.02.2025 whereas
