Litigants must disclose all relevant prior actions to the court; failure to do so constitutes suppression of material facts, undermining the integrity of legal proceedings.

Order

23/10/2024

The learned counsel for the respondents brings to the notice of this Court that this P.I.L. petitioner has filed an astonishing number of cases in this Court; at least 17 cases.

2. However, the petitioner did not disclose this vital fact in the writ petition and that was the reason, on 21st October 2024 the following order was passed by this Court:

“The learned counsel Mr. Sunil Purohit appearing for the respondent No.8 submits that the petitioner is a chronic litigant.

2. The learned counsel tenders a copy of the order dated 18.01.2023 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1739/2019 to apprise this Court that the Division Bench of this Court has recorded an observation against the present P.I.L. petitioner that he has misused the process of law.

3. Post this matter on 22th October 2024.”

3. Mr. Rajesh Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he needs some time to verify the details of the cases filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he may be permitted to address the Court on merits of the matter because there is really a public interest involved in this case.

4. This Court is however not inclined to go into the merits of the matter. We may observe that Mr. Rajesh Shah himself is the learned counsel who filed several cases for the P.I.L. petitioner. In that view of the matter, it was the duty of the P.I.L. petitioner and his learned counsel to disclose previous filing of cases in the present writ petition but the same has not been done. This is well settled that a person who comes to the Court must come with clean hands and disclose all relevant facts to the Court. We are of the opinion that not disclosing a vital fact shall amount to suppression of material facts. As we have recorded in the order dated 21st October 2024 that there is an observation by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court that the PIL petitioner, namely, Kanti Lal Upadhyay has misused the process of the law, it was necessary for the petitioner to disclose even now such order/orders passed by this Court.

5. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1739/2019; Kanti Lal Upadhyay vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., a co-ordiante Bench of this Court passed the following order:

“11. Needless to say that remedy to get a duly issued and registered patta cancelled is provided under Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act. Furthermore, the jurisdiction under Article 226of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised so as to quash the registered sale deed. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the writ petition herein has been filed for oblique motives in order to wreak vengeance and by intending concealment of material facts. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioner. It is further directed that the petitioner shall not be permitted to file any writ petition branding the same to be a Public Interest Litigation unless he deposits the amount of cost within next 30 days. Cost upon being deposited shall be appropriated in the funds of Rajasthan State Legal Services Authoriy.”

6. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. However, exercising restrain, we dismiss D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14423/2022 with a caution to the P.I.L. petitioner not to repeat such acts and, that too, of suppressing material facts from the Court.