The Allahabad High Court while dismissing the petition said that a person who conceals material facts while filing writ petition is not entitled for any relief from the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
A Single Bench of Justice Manjive Shukla passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Sunil Kumar Srivastava.
Petitioner in his writ petition has stated that he has filed a complaint to District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj wherein he has mentioned that one Arun Kumar Mishra has obtained appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Bal Kalyan Purv Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Buxi Khurd, Daraganj, Prayagraj on the basis of forged documents, therefore, inquiry may be conducted in the matter and the appointment of aforesaid Arun Kumar Mishra be cancelled.
Petitioner appearing in person has submitted that though cognizance of the aforesaid complaint lodged by the petitioner has been taken by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj but till date the inquiry in the matter has not been completed, therefore it is in the interest of justice that a direction be issued by the Court for completion of the inquiry and consequential action over the complaint of the petitioner.
Madan Lal Srivastava, counsel appearing for the Respondent No 5 has vehemently submitted that the petitioner while filing the petition has concealed material facts which were in his knowledge at the time of filing of the petition and therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed by the Court as it is well settled through catena of judgments of the Supreme Court that if petitioner while filing the writ petition conceals material facts then he is not entitled for any relief from the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Counsel appearing for the Respondent No 5 has further submitted that on the complaint of the petitioner, District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj has passed an order on 6.2.2023 whereby inquiry against Arun Kumar Mishra has been instituted and further direction was given to stop the payment of salary to Arun Kumar Mishra.
It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that Arun Kumar Mishra has challenged the order dated 6.2.2023 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj by filing petition wherein he has also prayed that proceedings arising out of the complaint submitted by complainant Sunil Kumar Srivastava may be quashed.
It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that even Sunil Kumar Srivastava, who is the petitioner in the petition, has filed an application for his impleadment in writ petition on 3.3.2023 on which the Court has passed an order dated 15.3.2023 whereby his application was directed to be listed with previous papers at an early date.
Counsel appearing for the Respondent No 5 has vehemently submitted that Sunil Kumar Srivastava in his petition has not disclosed regarding filing of the petition and further has also not disclosed the order dated 11.4.2023 though he has already put in appearance in the petition by filing impleadment application.
Counsel appearing for the Respondent No 5 has further argued that petitioner Sunil Kumar Srivastava was fully aware about the filing of Writ and the order dated 11.4.2023 passed in the said writ petition but he has deliberately concealed the said facts while filing his present writ petition.
It has been further stressed upon that the intention of Sunil Kumar Srivastava is crystal clear that by concealing material facts he has made an attempt to obtain an order from the Court for conclusion of the inquiry and consequential action pursuant to his complaint filed against Arun Kumar Mishra.
The Court considered the rival submissions advanced by the counsels appearing for the parties and the Court found that petitioner Sunil Kumar Srivastava was fully aware about filing of Writ and the order dated 11.4.2023 passed in the said writ petition but he deliberately has not disclosed those facts in his present writ petition.
The Court said that it is well settled through the catena of judgments of the Supreme Court as well as judgments of the Court that a person who conceals material facts while filing writ petition is not entitled for any relief from the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Court further found that the Supreme Court has categorically laid down the law that the petitioner while approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must disclose all the relevant facts in his writ petition and if petitioner does not disclose the relevant facts and material, then he is not entitled for any relief from the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
“In the case, petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition was fully aware about the filing of Writ and was also aware of the order dated 11.4.2023 passed by the Court in the aforesaid writ petition but deliberately he has not disclosed the said facts in the present writ petition. Petitioner has not disclosed the aforesaid facts in his writ petition only with an intention to somehow obtain an order from this court for conclusion of the inquiry and consequential action pursuant to his complaint. Since petitioner has concealed material facts which have direct bearing on the result of this writ petition, as such I am of the view that petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
I further find that when the facts of the writ petition are seen in the light of the aforementioned law laid down by the Supreme Court, then it becomes crystal clear that petitioner has concealed material facts while filing the writ petition before the Court and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed”, the Court observed while dismissing the petition.