Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 373 (ALL)

Sanjay Kumar v. State of U. P.

2022-03-14

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Writ-A No. 291 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, namely, Sanjay Kumar by Mr. Vashishtha Dhar Shukla, Advocate for the following relief : "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature of commanding the respondent no.5 to release the salary from January 2019 till month regularly and every month to the petitioner. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondent no.5 to decide the representation dated 29.11.2021 for his disburse the salary to the petitioner with in specific period. (iii) Issue any other and further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) To award cost of the petition, to the petition." 2. Writ-A No. 816 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of same petitioner i.e. Sanjay Kumar by Mr. Raj Kumar Singh and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Bind, Advocates for the following relief : "(i) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/letter dated 23.12.2021 issued by the respondent no.4 (Annexure No. 15 to this writ petition); (ii) To issue any other order of direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iii) To ward the cost of the petition to this petitioners." 3. Initially, a request has been made by Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vishishtha Dhar Shuklaon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ-A No. 291 of 2022 that Writ-A No. 816 of 2022 filed by Mr. Raj Kumar Singh and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Bind on behalf of the present petitioner may be dismissed as not pressed. 4. From the records of the present writ petition, it is clear that by the order dated 23rd December, 2021 passed by the Registrar, U.P. Pharmacy Council, Lucknow, the Chief Medical Officer, Aligarh has been informed that some fraud has been played by the petitioner while placing the pharmacy registration certificate, which does not belong to him. 5. 4. From the records of the present writ petition, it is clear that by the order dated 23rd December, 2021 passed by the Registrar, U.P. Pharmacy Council, Lucknow, the Chief Medical Officer, Aligarh has been informed that some fraud has been played by the petitioner while placing the pharmacy registration certificate, which does not belong to him. 5. Challenging the said order dated 23rd December, 2021, the petitioner has filed Writ-A No. 816 of 2022, which has been presented before this Court on 28th January, 2022, when as matter of fact, he has earlier filed Writ-A No. 291 of 2022 for a direction upon respondent no.5 i.e. Chief Medical Officer, Aligarh to release the salary of the petitioner from January, 2019 till date regularly. The said writ petition has been presented before this Court on 7th January, 2022. 6. This Court is surprised to see as to why the order dated 23rd December, 2021 has not been challenged by the petitioner in his first petition i.e. Writ-A No. 291 of 2022 and why this fact has been concealed in the second writ petition i.e. Writ-A no. 816 of 2022 by stating that this is the first writ petition filed for the present cause of action and no other writ petition has been filed or pending before this Court or its Lucknow Bench (Reference paragraph-1 of Writ-A No. 816 of 2022), when as matter of fact the petitioner is fully aware of filing of first writ petition i.e. Writ-A No. 291 of 2022. 7. Today, on the matter being taken up, when this Court made pointed query as to why this Court cannot dismiss both the writ petitions with cost on the ground of concealment of fact, Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vishishtha Dhar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ-A No. 291 of 2022 could not answer the same. 8. At this stage, Mr. Vishishtha Dhar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ-A No. 291 of 2022 submits that this writ petition be dismissed as not pressed. 9. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vishishtha Dhar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ-A No. 291 of 2022 could not answer the same. 8. At this stage, Mr. Vishishtha Dhar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ-A No. 291 of 2022 submits that this writ petition be dismissed as not pressed. 9. In K.D. Sharma vs. SAIL, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481, the Apex Court has held 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. The same law was reiterated in G. Jayashree vs. Bhagwandas S. Patel reported in (2009) 3 SCC 141 . 10. The Apex Court of India has repeatedly held that filing of false affidavit and concealment of material facts amounts to interference in the administration of justice and as such is criminal contempt of Court. 11. In Dhananjay Sharma versus State of Haryana & Ors., reported in AIR 1995 SC 1795 , wherein in paragraphs 39 and 40, the Apex Court has held as follows : "39. The question, therefore, which now requires our consideration is as to what action, is required to be taken against the respondents. 40. Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the Act) defines criminal contempt as the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or visible representation or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever to (1) scandalise or tend to candalise or lower or tend to lower the authority of any Court: (2) prejudice or interfere or tend to interfere.............Thus, any conduct, which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceedings amounts to the commission of criminal contempt. ............" 12. In Sabia Khan & Ors. Vs. ............" 12. In Sabia Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (1999) 1 SCC 271 , the Apex Court held that filing totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and such litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly. 13. Normally this Court would have examined the issue as to what action is to be taken against a litigant like the petitioner who has not approached this Court with clean hands by concealing the material facts, as noticed herein above. 14. However, considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions respectively, this Court dismisses both the writ petitions with a remark that such acts will not be done in future.