JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who alleges himself to be the Manager since 1990 of Kedar Nath Shikshan Sansthan, a Society established in 1977 and renewed from time to time thereafter, against the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the respondent no.4-the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Head Quarters, Lucknow, in which he has directed the registration of list of members of the Committee of Management of the Society on the basis of documents submitted by the respondent nos.7 and 8 as the Manager and the President respectively of the Society. 3. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 13.09.2011 passed by the respondent no.3 by which allegedly a modified list of membership of the Executive Committee of the Society has been registered, which was submitted by the respondent no.7 through an application dated 09.09.2011. 4. It has been submitted that the orders impugned have been passed on the basis of fraud played by the private respondents in collusion with the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Faizabad and the Deputy Registrar Headquarters Lucknow. By the orders impugned, the respondent no.4 has affirmed the petitioner's expulsion from the post of the Manager as well as from the primary membership of the Society. It has been submitted that the action of the respondent nos.7 and 8 is without issuing any notice or affording any opportunity of hearing. 5. It has been submitted that a dispute came into being with the induction of Smt. Girija Singh, respondent no.8 on account of death of one Dr. Ram Kumar Tripathi, who was the founder member. Smt Girja Singh was elected as the President on the death of the sitting President of the Society on 19.05.2002 for the remaining term. 6. It has been submitted that the respondent no.8 soon after her election on the post of the President started inducting her relatives as members of the Society as well as its Executive Committee. The petitioner was opposed to such conduct and therefore the respondent no.7 posing as as the Manager, on the instructions of the respondent no.8, submitted an application for registration of list of members of the Executive Committee of the Society for the year 2011–12. The petitioner was opposed to such conduct and therefore the respondent no.7 posing as as the Manager, on the instructions of the respondent no.8, submitted an application for registration of list of members of the Executive Committee of the Society for the year 2011–12. A copy of the letter dated 09.09.2011 and the accompanying list of members of Executive Committee has been filed as annexure -3 & 4 to the writ petition. 7. In paragraph-9 of the petition, the petitioner states that no fresh elections had taken place and the respondent no.7 could not have been elected as the Manager of the Society in place of the petitioner, therefore, the conduct of the respondent no.3 in registering the list submitted by the respondent no.7 by his order dated 13.09.2011 was also an act of fraud and collusion. 8. It has been further submitted that the respondent no.3 did not issue any notice inviting objections before passing the order dated 13.09.2011, registering the amended list of Executive Members. 9. In paragraph-11 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the reconstitution of the Executive Committee as reflected in the covering letter dated 09.09.2011 registered on 13.09.2011, was dubious and illegal. Consequently, in order to give it a colour of legitimacy, an Agenda was circulated on 17.10.2011 for a meeting of the General Body of the Society which was to be held on 29.10.2011. In the Agenda notice, no item relating to the issue of expulsion of the petitioner from the post of Manager or the Primary Membership of the Society was mentioned. By manipulating and forging the minutes of the meeting, an item concerning the petitioner's expulsion was added in the minutes. A copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 29.10.2011 has been filed as annexure-6 to the writ petition. It has been stated that the minutes of the meeting dated 29.10.2011 are completely silent on the list of Executive Committee Members submitted on 09.09.2011 and the order passed on 13.09.2011. When the reconstituted list of members of the Executive Committee, following the meeting dated 29.10.2011, was submitted for registration, the respondent no.3 issued notice to the petitioner on 19.11.2011. The petitioner submitted his objection on 01.12.2012 saying that the petitioner's expulsion was without any notice and completely fraudulent exercise. 10. When the reconstituted list of members of the Executive Committee, following the meeting dated 29.10.2011, was submitted for registration, the respondent no.3 issued notice to the petitioner on 19.11.2011. The petitioner submitted his objection on 01.12.2012 saying that the petitioner's expulsion was without any notice and completely fraudulent exercise. 10. It has been further submitted that since the Deputy Registrar, Faizabad, was related to the respondent no.8, the petitioner moved a transfer application before the respondent no.2 and the matter was transferred to the respondent no.4. After the matter was transferred to Lucknow, the petitioner and respondent no.8 again submitted the written submissions. 11. The petitioner also requested for personal hearing and for permitting him to produce certain documents like the proceedings register, the agenda register, the fee register, the income and expenditure register and the membership receipts, but all such requests were ignored and the respondent no.4 passed the order impugned without recording any finding on the effect of the order dated 13.09.2011, by which the reconstituted Executive Committee was registered by the respondent no.3 even prior to the meeting of the General Body, which allegedly expelled the petitioner from the post of the Manager and from primary membership of the Society. 12. It has been submitted by Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, that although the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 31.12.2015 runs into 33 pages, it does not deal with the arguments made by the petitioner that the General Body meeting dated 29.10.2011 was a completely fraudulent exercise to cover up the expulsion of the petitioner carried out by the respondent no.7 and 8 even before holding of the meeting, as is evident from the letter dated 09.09.2011 and the order passed on 13.09.2011. 13. Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued on the basis of page nos. 53, 54 and 55 of the writ petition that it is evident that the reconstituted Committee of Management registered by the order dated 13.09.2011 mentions the respondent no.7 as the Manager instead of the petitioner, even before the petitioner was ousted in the alleged General Body meeting held on 29.10.2011. 14. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State-respondents. It was specifically denied that the amended list of Executive Committee submitted by the Deputy Secretary contained the name of respondent no.7 as Manager. 14. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State-respondents. It was specifically denied that the amended list of Executive Committee submitted by the Deputy Secretary contained the name of respondent no.7 as Manager. It was further submitted that the petitioner was expelled from the Society due to continuous absence from the meetings of the Society. 15. A counter affidavit was also filed by Sri Balram Yadav, on behalf of the private respondent nos.7 and 8 stating therein that no fraud was committed at all as alleged. The petitioner was expelled from the primary membership of the society and also from the post of Manager as he was not attending the meetings of the General Body or of the Executive Council for the past more than one year and had not deposited the prescribed membership fee. His membership had already come to an end automatically as per Bye-law no.6 of the Bye-laws of the society filed as C.A.-2 to the counter affidavit. It was further submitted that there is no provision in the bye-laws to give notice to a Member for expulsion from the membership of the Society, who does not deposit membership fee and who does not attend three consecutive meetings of the Executive Body. 16. The Agenda dated 17.10.2011 clearly stated that any other issue can be raised for discussion in the General Body meeting proposed to be held, with the approval of the President. The issue of misconduct of the petitioner and one Sripati Singh was raised after approval of the President in the meeting held on 29.10.2011 and thereafter, the proposal to expel them was put to vote and approved by the General Body. 17. During the course of arguments by the counsel for the parties, the discrepancy in the list submitted by letter dated 09.09.2011 as was pointed out by Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, was disputed by Sri Balram Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent, who expressed doubt with regard to the correctness of the annexure filed with the writ petition. 18. This court passed an order on 04.09.2019 which is being quoted here in below:- "Shri Balram Yadav, while answering to the query made by the Court earlier, has produced before this Court a copy of list of Committee of Management submitted by Shri Radhey Raman Dubey as Dy. Manager on 09.09.2011 for the year 2011-12. 18. This court passed an order on 04.09.2019 which is being quoted here in below:- "Shri Balram Yadav, while answering to the query made by the Court earlier, has produced before this Court a copy of list of Committee of Management submitted by Shri Radhey Raman Dubey as Dy. Manager on 09.09.2011 for the year 2011-12. From a perusal of the said list, it is apparent that it contains the name of the petitioner-Ram Sanwarey Yadav, as a Manager of the Institution and it has been signed by Smt. Girija Singh, Surjit Singh, Radhey Raman Dubey, Deomani and some others. However, Shri Balram Yadav has pointed out the page nos.53, 54, and 55 of the writ petition to show that a different list has been annexed with the covering letter being the same i.e. of 09.09.2011 showing Radhey Raman Dubey as Manager and removing the name of Shri Ram Sanwarey Yadav to buttress the arguments made by the petitioner that the decision to oust the petitioner from the Committee of Management was taken before 09.09.2011 and the intent is visible in the said list whereas the actual resolution for removal of Shri Ram Sanwarey Yadav was passed on 29.10.2011. Shri Balram Yadav, has also pointed out that the certified copy of the letter dated 09.09.2011 which has been filed as Annexure at page no.53 shows the same to have been obtained in 2013 certified copy of the Page nos.54 & 55 seem to have been obtained on 25.02.2012. They relate to different documents and they have been combined to show that they relate to one document. Since it is the insistence of the petitioner that no such manipulations has been done and it is the certified copy of Page no.522 of the record of the Office of Dy. Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Faizabad. Let the record of the office of the Dy. Registrar be produced on 18.09.2019 to enable the Court to come to a definite conclusion with regard to the list submitted through the covering letter dated 09.09.2011 and the list submitted after 29.10.2011, again for the year 2011-12 by Mr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh. List this matter on 18.09.2019." 19. Let the record of the office of the Dy. Registrar be produced on 18.09.2019 to enable the Court to come to a definite conclusion with regard to the list submitted through the covering letter dated 09.09.2011 and the list submitted after 29.10.2011, again for the year 2011-12 by Mr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh. List this matter on 18.09.2019." 19. When the matter was taken up for hearing again on 18.09.2019, this court passed the following order:- "In pursuance of the order passed earlier by this Court, the record has been produced by the learned Standing Counsel sent from the office of the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Faizabad (now Ayodhya). The letter dated 9.9.2011 can be found at Page no.98 of the record, which has been sent by Sri Radhey Raman Dubey of Kedar Nath Shikshan Sansthan, Sonegaon, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, in which, it has been stated that the applicant wishes to get the list of members of the Committee of Management for the year 2011-12 registered in the office of the Deputy Registrar. The list submitted as Annexure shows Ram Sanwarey Yadav as Manager of the Samiti and it has been signed by Smt. Girija Singh, Surjit Singh, Rishabh Dev Singh, Dev Mani Verma, Radhey Raman Dubey, Neetu Singh, Ram Asrey Mishra and thumb impression of one Samsira is also appended thereto. A letter dated 11.11.2011 is also on record, which has been sent by Raghvendra Pratap Singh as Deputy Secretary of the Samiti. It informs the Deputy Registrar that a General Body meeting was held on 29.10.2011 and the Committee of Management has been reconstituted thereafter. A copy of the Minutes of the meeting held on 29.10.2011 as well as the amended list of Committee of Management for the year 201112 has been prayed to be registered. In the amended list annexed along with the said letter, Radhey Raman Dubey has been shown as Manager and Rajesh Pratap Singh has been shown as Deputy Manager and Raghvendra Pratap Singh as Deputy Secretary. It is evident from the record that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of pleadings that the Deputy Manager Radhey Raman Dubey had submitted a list even before the meeting held on 29.10.2011, removing the name of Ram Sanwarey Yadav as Manager of the Samiti is incorrect. It is evident from the record that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of pleadings that the Deputy Manager Radhey Raman Dubey had submitted a list even before the meeting held on 29.10.2011, removing the name of Ram Sanwarey Yadav as Manager of the Samiti is incorrect. Sri Rohit Tripathi has very fairly stated that his client has misinformed him and that his client perhaps was also confused. Sri Baldev Yadav appearing for the contesting respondents has said that all of the pleadings in the writ petition are based on this apparent inconsistency in the record. There is a deliberate attempt on misrepresentation of correct facts before this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, judgment is reserved." 20. It is apparent from the perusal of the pleadings on record filed by both the parties and from the record produced by the learned Standing Counsel as available in the office of the Deputy Registrar, Faizabad, that the petitioner resorted to deliberate misrepresentation amounting to fraud being played upon the court. 21. In (1992) 1 SCC 534 (Shrisht Dhawan Vs. Shaw Bros.) the Supreme Court in paragraph 20 has held as under: "20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct." 22. In (1994) 1 SCC 1 (S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath) the Supreme Court in paragraph 5 has held as under: "5.The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation." 23. In (2003) 8 SCC 319 (Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and Others) the Supreme Court has held as under: "15. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation." 23. In (2003) 8 SCC 319 (Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and Others) the Supreme Court has held as under: "15. Commission of fraud on court and suppression of material facts are the core issues involved in these matters. Fraud as is well-known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwells together. 16. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person, or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of former either by word or letter. 17. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentations may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. 18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. 23. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous." 24. In (2005) 6 SCC 149 (State of U.P. and Another Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao) it was held by the Supreme Court in paragraph-8 as under: "8. By "fraud" is meant an intention to deceive; whether it is from any expectation of advantage to the party himself or from ill will towards the other is immaterial. The expression "fraud" involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss, that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable or of money and it will include and any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a noneconomic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver, will almost always call loss or detriment to the deceived. In short, it is a noneconomic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver, will almost always call loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied." 25. In Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2010 (2) SCC 114 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final." 26. It referred to several judgments of the Supreme Court like Hari Narain Vs. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558 , Welcome Hotel Vs. State of A.P. (1983) 4 SCC 575, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy Vs. Govt. of Karnataka (1991) 3 SCC 261 , Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. S.B.I. (2007) 8 SCC 449 , Sunil Poddar Vs. Union Bank of India (2008) 2 SCC 326 and K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited (2008) 12 SCC 481, to observe that "........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 and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing 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..........." 27. 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..........." 27. This Court has considered the case of the petitioner on the basis of the pleadings made in the writ petition, the arguments raised before this Court both by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and it finds that the petitioner resorted to deliberate mis representation to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. 28. This writ petition is therefore dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/-. The cost shall be deposited by the petitioner in the Registry of this Court within one month from today, which shall be forwarded by the Registry to the Child Welfare Committee, Lucknow, to be utilized for the welfare of children in need of care and protection. In case of failure to deposit the aforesaid cost by the petitioner, the Senior Registrar shall request the District Magistrate, Faizabad, to recover the amount from the movable and immovable properties of the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.