Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 846 (MP)

Rajendra Singh Rawat v. State of M. P.

2012-09-03

SUJOY PAUL

body2012
ORDER 1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 21.2.2012 and 25.2.2012 (Annexures P-6 and P-7). It is further prayed that the respondents be restrained from making any interference in discharging the duty of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dongarpur by the petitioner. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under : 3. As per the pleadings of the petitioner, the petitioner contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dongarpur. The petitioner secured 284 votes, whereas respondent No.2 got 280 votes. After declaration of result, the certificate of election was granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, election of Gram Panchayat was notified as per relevant rules. 4. Respondent No.2 filed an election petition under section 122 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (Adhiniyam). In the said election petition (Annexure P-3), the non-applicant No.1 was impleaded as under : “Rajendra Prasad, S/o Phooli, aged 35 years, Caste - Rawat, R/o Gram Dongarpur Gram Panchayat, Dongarpur.” 5. The specified authority (Election Tribunal) under the Adhiniyam issued notices of the said election petition to the non-applicants. Thereafter, in the said proceedings, it passed the impugned order (Annexure P-6), whereby it is directed that for the reasons stated in the order it is necessary to order re-counting of votes. By order dated 25.2.2012 (Annexure P-7) the re-counting was done and the election petition was allowed. The election of present petitioner was set aside and in lieu thereof the election petitioner was declared as elected Sarpanch. These orders are called in question by the present petitioner in this petition on the ground that he is Rajendra Singh Rawat s/o Phooli Singh and he has not been impleaded by the election petitioner. In other words, it is stated that the present petitioner was not arrayed as respondent, in the election petition. Therefore, the election petition itself was not tenable and no relief could have been granted against the present petitioner. It is further stated that the mandatory provisions of 1995 Rules made under the Adhiniyam were not followed and no notice of election petition is served on him (para 6.5 of the writ petition). Therefore, the election petition itself was not tenable and no relief could have been granted against the present petitioner. It is further stated that the mandatory provisions of 1995 Rules made under the Adhiniyam were not followed and no notice of election petition is served on him (para 6.5 of the writ petition). It is further stated that the proceedings of Election Tribunal were vitiated and were not in consonance with the mandatory provisions of rule 3 of M.P. Panchayat (Election Petition) Corrupt Practices and Disqualification of Membership Rules, 1995. 6. This Court on 7.3.2012 entertained the petition on the basis of statement of the petitioner that he was neither impleaded in the election petition, nor was served in the said matter and without hearing him impugned orders are passed. This Court also stayed the operation of impugned orders. However, later on Shri H.K. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.2 (election petitioner) and the State filed/produced the proceedings of the election petition to show that although the name of the present petitioner was erroneously mentioned as Rajendra Prasad in lieu of Rajendra Singh, the fact remains that notices were served on him, he filed the vakalatnama, appeared and actively participated in the proceedings, he even filed his affidavit under Order 18 rule 4 CPC and under Order 9 rule 7 CPC before the Election Tribunal. It is vehemently argued by the respondents that the petitioner had deliberately and willfully suppressed these material facts from this Court and by misleading and misrepresentation, obtained ad-interim order. It is stated that petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. 7. On the basis of aforesaid, the respondent No.2 was directed to file an affidavit indicating the proceedings/documents in which present petitioner allegedly put his signature. Shri H.K. Shukla filed affidavit on 5.4.2012. In turn, the petitioner was directed to file his response to this affidavit. In turn, the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 25.7.2012 and denied the signatures on certain order sheets and stated that the signatures are not his signatures but made by somebody in the like manner. He also denied various signatures on certain pages in this affidavit. By filing another affidavit dated 31.7.2012, the election petitioner-respondent No.2 stated that the petitioner has filed a false affidavit before this Court. He also denied various signatures on certain pages in this affidavit. By filing another affidavit dated 31.7.2012, the election petitioner-respondent No.2 stated that the petitioner has filed a false affidavit before this Court. It is stated that the petitioner engaged Shri K.K. Maheshwari, Advocate in the proceedings before the authority below and actively participated in those proceedings. This Court on 9.8.2012 passed a detailed order. In this order, this Court recorded that the petitioner filed this petition by saying that he was not impleaded as party-respondent in the election petition, nor he was served, whereas the respondents have taken a stand that he was very much served, engaged an Advocate, participated in the proceedings and even filed affidavit under Order 18 rule 4 CPC and also filed an application under Order 9 rule 7 CPC supported by an affidavit. The petitioner by filing affidavit denied most of the signatures. This Court opined that this is a very very serious matter where somebody had appeared as respondent, deposed his statement, participated in the proceedings and on that basis the election matter is decided. To determine the real question involved, this Court directed the petitioner to file a specific affidavit in the following manner : “(i) Petitioner shall specifically indicate whether he appeared in any of the proceedings in the Election Tribunal pursuant to which impugned orders are passed. (ii) If he had appeared, he should disclose the dates on which he had appeared before the Tribunal. If he had not appeared, he shall specifically state that he had not participated in any of the proceedings before the Election Tribunal.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner was orally directed to affix the recent photographs of the petitioner on the said affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed affidavit dated 14.8.2012. This affidavit reads as under : “(i) That, I am the petitioner of the above mentioned petition. (ii) That, in election petition, one Rajendra Prasad s/o Phooli, aged 35 years was made party as respondent No.1, describing him as winning candidate on the post of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Dongarpur. Notice of election petition was also issued in his name. (iii) That, after getting knowledge of filing of some petition in respect of election of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Dongarpur. Notice of election petition was also issued in his name. (iii) That, after getting knowledge of filing of some petition in respect of election of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Dongarpur. I contacted Advocate at Joura, and engaged him to protect my interest and also appeared for protecting my interest, however, facts remain that I have not been impleaded as a party in the election petition even by correcting the name as mentioned in the election petition, as the declaration of the result, till last. Taken it to be that I participated, even then it is not in dispute that, I have not been arrayed as respondent in the election petition and my election was not challenged, in the election petition filed by respondent No.2.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. This Court perused the affidavit and found that the petitioner has disclosed that he engaged an Advocate to protect his interest and also appeared for protecting his interest in the proceedings of election petition. Pausing here for a moment, it is noteworthy that this Court issued a very specific direction to the petitioner to specify the dates on which he participated in the proceedings. The petitioner has not chosen to comply with the said order and did not specify and disclose the dates on which he had appeared and participated in the proceedings. On the contrary in the above affidavit petitioner has advanced argument and expressed his opinion that even if he had participated in Election Proceedings, he was not arrayed as respondent. In my opinion, in the affidavit petitioner was only required to state facts. Relevant portion of rule 4 (Chapter IX) of High Court of M.P. Rules, 2008 also mandates the same in following words : “.... The affidavit shall contain no statement which is in the nature of expression of opinion or argument.” 10. Considering the aforesaid, on 16.8.2012, the matter was again directed to be listed with a view to give another opportunity to petitioner to comply with the order passed by this Court on last occasion. In other words, it was thought proper to ask the petitioner whether he intends to file a proper affidavit. Consequently, matter was listed on 21.8.2012, the learned counsel for the petitioner on a specific query by the Bench stated that he is satisfied with the affidavit filed and no further affidavit is required to be filed by the petitioner. 11. In other words, it was thought proper to ask the petitioner whether he intends to file a proper affidavit. Consequently, matter was listed on 21.8.2012, the learned counsel for the petitioner on a specific query by the Bench stated that he is satisfied with the affidavit filed and no further affidavit is required to be filed by the petitioner. 11. This Court perused the affidavit dated 14.8.2012. On perusal it was found that on the photographs of the petitioner two seals of Notary were put in such a manner which destroys the identity of the petitioner. In other words, two seals were put on a passport size photograph in such a manner that person/petitioner cannot be identified. This Court directed that prima facie it appears that act of the Notary is a deliberate act to destroy the identity of the petitioner and it may amount to professional misconduct on his part. The conduct, in addition to it may be a criminal contempt as defined in section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Prima facie it appeared that the act of the Notary amounts to interference in the administration of justice. The Registry was directed to issue notice to the Notary concerned and provide him a certified copy of the affidavit dated 14.8.2012 on which he had put his seals and signatures. This document was provided to him with a view to give him adequate opportunity and with a view to provide material on the basis of which aforesaid direction was issued. In turn, the concerned Notary appeared and perused the original affidavit and photographs, prayed for time and then filed his affidavit dated 24.8.2012. He prayed for unconditional apology and stated that he had no intention to give benefit to anybody and if any mistake has been committed by him, he prays for unconditional apology. He stated that out of above two seals on the photograph, the seal on above portion is not used by him, and he put the seal only on the lower portion. He stated in the affidvit that after putting seal on the lower portion of the photograph, he went to attend the natural call and it appears that in his absence his seal is misused by somebody. The petitioner, in turn, filed his affidavit and stated that the seals were, in fact put by the Notary himself. 12. He stated in the affidvit that after putting seal on the lower portion of the photograph, he went to attend the natural call and it appears that in his absence his seal is misused by somebody. The petitioner, in turn, filed his affidavit and stated that the seals were, in fact put by the Notary himself. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents have stated that the petitioner’s signatures find place in the order sheets dated 27.8.2010, 29.1.2011, 26.2.2011, 6.4.2011, 18.5.2011, 18.5.2011, 7.6.2011, 27.8.2011 and 6.9.2011. The petitioner had filed his affidavit under Order 18 rule 4 CPC and also filed an application under Order 9 rule 7 CPC dated 25.6.2011, which was supported by his affidavit. The petitioner had engaged an Advocate and filed his vakalatnama. He actively participated in the proceeding before the authority below and even filed his written submissions. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 14. The following question needs to be decided by this Court : “Whether petitioner has suppressed material facts and has not disclosed full facts before this Court? If yes, whether petitioner is entitled for adjudication of the present matter on merits?” 15. In the writ petition, the petitioner has no where disclosed that he had actually appeared before the Election Tribunal. Admittedly, petitioner had engaged an Advocate and filed his vakalatnama. He admittedly took part in the Election proceedings. It is also not disclosed by the petitioner as to how he came to know about the proceedings under section 122 of the Adhiniyam. The respondents have stated that on various dates the petitioner’s signatures are there in the proceedings before the authority below. He filed his affidavits under Order 18 rule 4 CPC and in support of an application under Order 9 rule 7 CPC. This Court passed a specific order dated 9.8.2012 directing the petitioner to file a specific affidavit indicating all the dates in which he had actually appeared in Election Proceedings. The petitioner, in turn, had filed a sketchy and evasive affidavit dated 14.8.2012 and did not comply with the specific order passed by this Court. It was obligatory for the petitioner to file an affidavit in the manner directed by this Court and to disclose full and complete facts. The petitioner, in turn, had filed a sketchy and evasive affidavit dated 14.8.2012 and did not comply with the specific order passed by this Court. It was obligatory for the petitioner to file an affidavit in the manner directed by this Court and to disclose full and complete facts. The petitioner was again asked on the next date whether he wants to comply with the order, the petitioner stated that he is satisfied by the affidavit aforesaid. Thus, the petitioner has not chosen to disclose full, correct and necessary facts. Thus, the question is whether petitioner deserves hearing on merits. 16. This is settled in law that one has to approach the Court with clean hands, clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. The petitioner should have disclosed full facts in the writ petition including the fact that he had engaged a counsel, participated in the proceedings and the said counsel actively participated in the said proceedings. The petitioner has not chosen to state those facts and merely stated that he was not impleaded as party-respondent in the section 122 proceedings and he was not noticed and proceedings were not in consonance with the rules. The apex Court in catena of judgments has held that such litigants who are invoking equitable, extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should approach the Court with a pair of clean hands. In absence thereof they are not entitled for any adjudication on merits. It is profitable to quote certain judgments on the subject : In Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2008)1 SCC 560 ], the apex Court held as under in para 16 : “16. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior Court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries, this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt.” In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited [(2008)12 SCC 481], the apex Court held as under : “33. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries, this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt.” In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited [(2008)12 SCC 481], the apex Court held as under : “33. The learned counsel for SAIL is also right in urging that the appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands by disclosing all facts. An impression is sought to be created as if no notice was ever given to him nor was he informed about the consideration of cases of eligible and qualified bidders in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court in review and confirmed by this Court. The true facts, however, were just contrary to what was sought to be placed before the Court. A notice was issued by SAIL to the appellant, he received the notice, intimated in writing to SAIL that he had authorised Ramesh of Rithwik Projects to appear on his behalf. Ramesh duly appeared at the time of consideration of bids. Bid of respondent 2 was found to be lowest and was accepted and the contract was given to him (under Tender Notice 4). The said contract had nothing to do with Tender Notice 5 and the contract thereunder had been given to the appellant herein and he had completed the work. Thus, it is clear that the appellant had not placed all the facts before the Court clearly, candidly and frankly. 34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ Court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or supressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. 35. The underlying object has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in the leading case of R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner, in the following words : (KB p.514) “...... 35. The underlying object has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in the leading case of R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner, in the following words : (KB p.514) “...... It has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on the ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts -- it says facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it -- the Court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts; and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement.” [Emphasis supplied) 36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a writ Court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating. “We will not listen to your application because of what you have done”. The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. 37. In Kensington Income Tax Commissioner, Viscount Reading, C.J. observed : (KB pp.495-96) “..... Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant’s affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that the Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit.” (Emphasis supplied) 38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play “hide and seek” or to “pick and choose” the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because “the Court known law but not facts.” 39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commissioner is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a writ of the Court with “soiled hands”. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. If fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court.” 17. It is held that suppression or concealment of material facts is not even an advocacy. After taking note of various Supreme Court judgments on the subject, the apex Court opined as under in para 51 : “51. Yet in another case in Vijay Syal v. State of Punjab, this Court stated : (SCC p.420, para 24) “24. In order to sustain and maintain the sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law Courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the Court, when a Court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does so at its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take the consequences that follow on account of its own making. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment by Courts in dealing with such matters is either mistaken or lightly taken instead of learning a proper lesson. Hence, there is a compelling need to take a serious view in such matters to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of justice.” In Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [ (2010)2 SCC 114 ], the apex Court held in para 7 as under : “7. Hence, there is a compelling need to take a serious view in such matters to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of justice.” In Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [ (2010)2 SCC 114 ], the apex Court held in para 7 as under : “7. In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI, it was held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court is not just a Court of law, but is also a Court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court referred to the judgment of Scrutton, L.J. in R. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, and observed : (Prestige Lights Ltd. case, SCC p.462, para 35). In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ Courts would become impossible.” In Manohar Lal (dead) by LRs v. Ugrasen [ (2010)11 SCC 557 ], the apex Court held in para 48 as under : “48. The present appellants had also not disclosed that land allotted to them falls in commercial area. When a person approaches a Court of equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. The present appellants had also not disclosed that land allotted to them falls in commercial area. When a person approaches a Court of equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. “Equally, the judicial process should never become an instrument of oppression or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice.” Who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim “Jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem”, means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. (Vide Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand and Noorduddin v. Dr. K.L. Anand at SCC p.249, para 9).” 18. In paragraph 53 of this judgment, the apex Court held that in this kind of cases, the proceedings for criminal contempt can be initiated. 19. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan and another [ (2011)7 SCC 639 ], the apex Court in para 164 held that it is a settled proposition of law that a false statement made in the Court or in the pleadings intentionally to mislead the Court and obtains favourable order amounts to criminal contempt. 20. In the present case as stated above, it is clear that petitioner has suppressed material facts from this Court. He was obliged to state full facts including the fact about his participation in the proceedings before the Election Tribunal. The petitioner even did not comply with the order of this Court to file an affidavit in a specific manner stated above in para 7 of this order. Thus, an adverse inference is drawn against the petitioner which means he has not deliberately disclosed the real facts because those facts are against him. The conduct of the petitioner cannot be appreciated. He suppressed the material facts and mislead the Court by suppressing necessary, important and full facts. 21. In a catena of judgments including Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India [ (2007)8 SCC 449 ], the apex Court held in para 35 as under : “35. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. 21. In a catena of judgments including Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India [ (2007)8 SCC 449 ], the apex Court held in para 35 as under : “35. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ Courts would become impossible. 22. On the basis of said Supreme Colurt judgments, following principles may be culled out : 1. A writ remedy is an equitable one. While exercising extraordinary power a Writ Court certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. 2. Litigant before the Writ Court must come with clean hands, clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. He should disclose all facts without suppressing anything. Litigant cannot be allowed to play “hide and seek” or to “pick and choose” the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back)/conceal other facts. 3. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or mis-representation which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. 4. If litigant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly or states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power to refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. 5. Such a litigant requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. 6. There is a compelling need to take a serious view in such matters to ensure purity and grace in the administration of justice. 7. 5. Such a litigant requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. 6. There is a compelling need to take a serious view in such matters to ensure purity and grace in the administration of justice. 7. The litigation in the Court of law is not a game of chess. The Court is bound to see the conduct of party who is invoking such jurisdiction. 23. Considering the aforesaid principles, I find no reason to adjudicate this matter on merits. Petitioner has suppressed material facts in order to mislead the Court and did not abide the order of this Court dated 9.8.2012 to file an affidavit in a particular manner thereby did not disclose the facts. By the said conduct, the petitioner has made an attempt to pollute the stream of justice. Considering the aforesaid, the petition cannot be entertained and is hereby dismissed. The Registry is directed to issue notice to the petitioner as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for suppression of facts, for non-disclosure of complete facts and for abusing the process of the Court by his aforesaid conduct. He be noticed as to why proceedings for criminal contempt as defined in S.2(ii) and (iii) be not initiated against him. The petitioner be noticed by the Registry and after service of notice, the said contempt matter be placed before the appropriate Bench for further hearing. 24. I will be failing in my duty if I do not express my deep displeasure on the conduct of the Notary, Shri H.N. Sharma. It is difficult to swallow the defence taken by the Notary that he did not put both the seals on the photographs of affidavit dated 14.8.2012. The Notary is custodian of seals and it is his duty to ensure that his seal is not misused. I am unable to accept the contention that the seal was not put by him on the photographs. This is a matter of common knowledge that photograph is affixed with a view to identify a person. If Notary put his seals in such a manner over the photograph because of which the person cannot be identified, conduct of Notary is highly improper and is not in consonance with the duty assigned to him. However, the said Notary has prayed for an unconditional apology. If Notary put his seals in such a manner over the photograph because of which the person cannot be identified, conduct of Notary is highly improper and is not in consonance with the duty assigned to him. However, the said Notary has prayed for an unconditional apology. He appeared before the Court and stated that he is an aged and ailing person and before this event no mistake had been committed by him. 25. Considering the aforesaid, while deprecating the said conduct of the Notary, at present I do not deem it proper to take any further action against the said Notary. However, the Notary is warned to be careful in future and not indulge in such kind of practice. It is expected that the Notary will be careful in future and will discharge his duties with sincerity, honesty and devotion. 26. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is dismissed. The ad-interim order granted by this Court is vacated. No costs.