IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA th ON THE 5 OF MARCH, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 7019 of 2025 BABURAM YADAV AND ANOTHER Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri V.C. Dwivedi - Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi - Government Advocate for respondents Nos.1 to 3/State.

ORDER This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05.11.2024 passed by respondent No.3 whereby the charge of the post of Samiti Prabandak Leelatola and Karpa has been taken away from the petitioners and handed over to respondent No.4.

2. When the matter was taken up on 04.03.2025, counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that in pursuance to the order dated 05.11.2024 charge is not taken away from petitioners till date. They are still in possession of charge. His statement was placed on record and State counsel was directed to verify the aforesaid statement. The matter was directed to be listed today.

3. When the matter is taken up for consideration today, counsel appearing for petitioners as well as State submit that respondent No.4 is working on the post of Samiti Prabandak Leelatola and Karpa and as on date, the documents produced by the State counsel demonstrate that all the proceedings with respect to disbursement of the salary of the employees are Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA being made under the signatures of respondent No.4.

4. There is nothing on record placed by petitioners to demonstrate that they are still working on the post of Samiti Prabandak in the aforesaid society. Yesterday, when counsel for petitioners made a statement before this Court, he was warned that in case if statement is not found to be correct, then consequences will follow. Despite the same, he is decided to stick to his statement and therefore, this Court has directed the State counsel to verify the aforesaid statement. However, from verification and on submissions of State counsel, the statement made before this Court was found to be incorrect.

5. Counsel for petitioners himself has argued before this Court that respondent No.4 is working on the post of Samiti Prabandak Leelatola and Karpa. This goes to show that the order passed by the authority dated

05.11.2024 was already complied with.

6. State counsel further pointed out that on 05.11.2024 the charge was already taken and respondent No.4 has resumed his duties as Samiti Prabandak Leelatola and Karpa.

7. There is no averment made in the entire writ petition with respect to the same. It is a petition filed suppressing the material information from the Court. When confronted with the aforesaid, counsel appearing for petitioners prays for withdrawal of this petition. However, as he was already warned yesterday not to make an incorrect statement before this Court, therefore, this Court does not deem it appropriate to permit the petitioners to simply withdraw this petition.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arunima Baruah vs Union of India reported in (2007) 6 SCC 120 has held that suppression must be of 'material' fact. It was observed -

"10. On the one hand, judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, on the other, it provides for a discretionary remedy. Access to justice is a human right. (See Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal [(2003) 6 SCC 230] and Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi v. State of Gujarat [(2007) 4 SCC 241 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 260 : (2007) 5 Scale 357].) A person who has a grievance against a State, a forum must be provided for redressal thereof. (See Hatton v. United Kingdom [15 BHRC 259]. For reference see also Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India [(2005) 4 SCC 649].)

11. The court's jurisdiction to determine the lis between the parties, therefore, may be viewed from the human rights concept of access to justice. The same, however, would not mean that the court will have no jurisdiction to deny equitable relief when the complainant does not approach th