1 2025:CGHC:17798-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 252 of 2025 Venkat Rao Majji (Majji Venkat Wrongly Mentioned In The Orders) S/o Nagaiya Majji Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Gogla, Tahsil And Police Station Gangaloor, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Inspector General Of Police Bastar Range, Civil Line, Lalbag, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Superintendent Of Police Bijapur, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.04.24 12:51:32 +0530 2 conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for respondent / State. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1600 of 2025 (Venkat Rao Majji vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Briefs facts of the case are that in the year 2011, the appellant was appointed as Constable under the respondent no. 1 department and since then he was discharging his duties with utmost sincerity and honesty. On 09.03.2020, the appellant was served with departmental charge sheet and thereafter the departmental enquiry was initiated against the appellant and upon completion of departmental enquiry proceedings, the charge sheet was submitted before the respondent no. 3, who in turn, passed order dated 15.10.2020, whereby the appellant was removed from services. As the appellant was removed from services without affording proper opportunity of hearing and without following due proceedings of departmental enquiry, therefore the appellant filed an appeal before the respondent no. 2 against the order of removal dated 15.10.2020. The appellant is a tribal person and he is out of service since more than 5 years. The appellant had no knowledge about the order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 and 3 therefore while filing aforesaid Writ Petition (S) No. 1600 of 2025. The aforesaid Writ Petition (S) No. 1600 of 2025 came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 04.03.2025 and on that day, initially 'the learned Single Bench has passed the order and the relevant portion of order passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced herein below: 5. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, respondent No. 2/ Inspector General of Police, Bastar Range, Civil Lines, Lalbag Jagdalpur is directed to decide the 3 appeal in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of 10 days from the date of production of a copy of this order and to inform this Court about the decision on the appeal. It is made clear that this Court has not commented anything on merits of the case. 6. With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands disposed of. 5. The aforesaid order was passed by the learned Single Judge in presence of Additional Advocate General as well as Panel Lawyer. After passing aforesaid order, the Additional Advocate General along with Panel Lawyer appeared before the learned Single Judge by stating that the appeal has already been decided on 04.03.2022 by the respondent no. 2/ Inspector General of Police, Bastar Range, Civil Lines, Lalbag Jagdalpur. On the basis of submission made by the Additional Advocate General and Panel Lawyer, the learned Single Judge passed detailed order and the relevant portion of 4 detailed order is reproduced herein below: 17. Therefore where, material facts are suppressed, then the Court can refuse to exercise its equitable jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the suppression of material fact by the petitioner is a misconduct and this Court takes a serious note of the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner with regard to suppression of material fact and in order to discourage such practice, this Court deems it proper to impose an exemplary cost upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lac) for acting mischievously with the Court. The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lac) before the Registry of this Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Registrar General shall not only initiate proceedings for recovery of cost, but shall also register a case for contempt of Court. 18. A copy of this order be placed before the Registrar General for necessary action and compliance. 19. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 20. Before parting with the order, it would be apposite to issue a word of caution to the learned counsel appearing in this case to take due care while making submissions with respect to facts of the case. 5 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not suppressed any facts deliberately before the learned Single Judge and he had no knowledge about the order dated 04.03.2022 allegedly passed by the respondent no. 2 and if the appellant would have been any knowledge of the same, then he would have been challenged the same either by filing revision before the revisional authority or before the learned Single Judge. The appellant is a tribal person and he is living scheduled area of District Bijapur. The appellant belongs to a poor and rustic family. The appellant is out of service since more than 5 years and he is nowhere gainfully employed, therefore the appellant is not able to deposit the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lac), therefore the appellant most respectfully prays for quashing the order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made be learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which, no interference is sought for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and materials available on record. 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner / appellant herein observing that from the perusal of the order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the appellate authority i.e. the Inspector 6 General of Police, Bastar Range, Civil Lines, Lalbag Jagdalpur, it seems that the writ petitioner has suppressed the material fact and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has not taken due care while drafting the petition and making submissions in this regard. Accordingly, since there is suppression of fact by the writ petitioner as from perusal of the document, it goes to show that the writ petitioner has received the copy of the said order, and this fact has not been disclosed either by the writ petitioner or by his counsel. Learned Single Judge further held that it is the sacrosanct principle of getting relief from the Court that the party should have come with clean hands. Suppression of fact is a serious matter and no litigant should be allowed to come to the Court while suppressing material fact. Time and again Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has passed several orders while imposing cost upon the litigants who suppressed material facts in order to get any order in their favour. The course adopted by the writ petitioner is impermissible as his application is based on misrepresentation of law and facts. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a license to file misconceived or frivolous petition. It is well settled law that the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and the writ petitioner who approaches the Court for such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts, if he fails to do so and suppresses the material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 7 10. The learned Single Judge relied upon various judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Hari Narain vs. Badri Das reported in AIR 1963 SC 1558, G. Narayanswamy Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. And Another vs. Govt. of Karnataka and Another reported in AIR 1991 SC 1726, Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao vs. V.K. Parasaran and Others reported in AIR 1996 SC 2687, K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481, Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114, Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and Others vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and Others reported in (2013) 11 SCC 531, All India EPF Staff Federation vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1629, K. Jayaram and Others vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others reported in (2022) 12 SCC 815 and has concluded that in light of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, it is apparent that the writ petitioner has deliberately suppressed the material facts regarding disposal of his appeal before the competent authority, the said facts have been intentionally and deliberately suppressed by the petitioner in order to get the order. The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ Court must come with clean hands and put-forth all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are 8 relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the Court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced. 11. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, in an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 12. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet