Afr High Court
Case Details
1 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8501 of 2024 1 - Pannalal Sinha S/o Sukhiram Sinha Aged About 51 Years R/o Village- Navagaon, Post - Dundera, Police Station - Arjunda, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Joint Director (Additional), Directorate Of Health Services, Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Durg, District Hospital Complex, Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 16 of 2025 1 - Lokeshwar Kumar Hirwani S/o Late Balduram Hirwani Aged About 53 Years R/o Village And Post Purai District - Durg Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director Directorate Of Health Services Third Floor Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Director (Additional) Directorate Of Health Services Third Floor Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Durg District Hospital Complex Durg District - Durg Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 311 of 2025 1 - Manoj Kumar Nishad S/o Manthir Ram Nishad Aged About 27 Years R/o H. No. 256, Ward No. 15, Tirga, Dist.- Durg, C.G. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Director (Additional) Directorate Of Health Services, Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Durg, District Hospital Complex, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 318 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
1 - Tahal Singh Sahu S/o Mr. Arjun Singh Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village- Kotni, Post- Nagpura, Police Station- Pulgaon, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Director (Additional) Directorate Of Health Services, Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Durg, District Hospital Complex, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents 3 WPS No. 8542 of 2024 1 - Shrawan Kumar Sahu S/o Mr. Ratturam Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Bhengari, Post- Charwahi, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Joint Director (Additional) Directorate Of Health Services, Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Durg, District Hospital Complex, Durg, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 327 of 2025 1 - Yogesh Kumar S/o Ghasiya Ram Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Kanakot District - Durg Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director Directorate Of Health Services Third Floor Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Director (Additional) Directorate Of Health Services Third Floor Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Durg District - Hospital Complex Durg District - Drug Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 305 of 2025 1 - Kaliram Sahu S/o Mr. Kunwar Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Village And Post- Surdung, Police Station- Jamul, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner 4 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Director (Additional) Directorate Of Health Services, Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Durg, District Hospital Complex, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 312 of 2025 1 - Hemant Kumar Sahu S/o Mr. Akbar Das Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village-Navagaon, Post-Dundera, Police Station- Arjunda, District- Balod, C.G. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Joint Director (Additional) Directorate Of Health Services, Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur, C.G. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Durg, District Hospital Complex, Durg, District-Balod, C.G. ... Respondents WPS No. 817 of 2025 1 - Shyam Sundar Hirwani S/o Mr. Kirit Ram Hirwani Aged About 52 Years R/o Village And Post- Purai, Block And Distric- Durg, C.G. versus ... Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur C.G. 2 - Joint Director (Additional) Directorate Of Health Services, Third 5 Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Durg, District Hospital Complex, Durg, District- Durg C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Siddharth Tiwari, Advocate For State :- Mr. Abhishek Gupta, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 31.01.2025 1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in these
Decision
cases, as such, all these petitions are being disposed off by this common order. 2. All the respective petitioners have filed these writ petitions stating that even after expiry of 12 years from the date of issuance of the advertisement, the petitioners are not being appointed for the post of Paramedical Health Workers (Male), though all the petitioners are qualified for appointment for the same and their names were also forwarded by the Chief Medical Health Officer (CMHO) to the Director, Health Services for consideration of their appointment, however, it has not been considered till date. It has been stated in the writ petitions that an application was moved under Right to Information Act, 2005 in which the petitioners were informed that the recruitment proceedings are still going on. Based upon this information, some of the petitioners made a 6 detailed representation on 12.02.2024 before the Director, Health Services, Joint Director Health Services and before the concerned CMHOs of District Durg, Balod & Bemetara along with all the documents for consideration for their appointment as Paramedical Health Workers (Male). 3. The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the writ petitions. Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer made by the petitioners in all the petitions, however, in sum and substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The reliefs prayed in WPS No.8501/2024 (Pannalal Sinha vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) are quoted hereinbelow:- “10.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders to call for records from the Respondent Authorities pertaining to the present case. 10.2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and the Respondent authorities may kindly be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for issuance of appointment order to the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male), in pursuance of the advertisement dated 04.05.2012 within a stipulated period of time with all the consequential benefits. 10.3. Cost of the Petition and compensation for delay of 12 years be awarded. 10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the Petitioner, in the interest of 7 justice.” 4. Mr. Siddharth Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners appeared on 07.01.2025 and has prayed for time and the matter was again listed on 16.01.2025, however, it was adjourned as counsel for the petitioner was not available. Thereafter, subsequent writ petitions have been filed in which vide order dated 15.01.2025, counsel for the petitioner was directed to explain the delay in filing these petitions as the recruitment process was pertaining to the year 2012 and after more than 13 years, these petitions were filed. Upon this, as directed by this Court, affidavits were filed in shape of application for condonation of delay in filing of writ petitions. In the affidavit, the details have been stated right from 04.05.2012 till 22.02.2024 while explaining the delay supported with affidavit of the petitioners. Since the petitioners have reasonably explained the delay, as such, this Court was inclined to hear the petitioners and accordingly, these cases were directed to be listed on 31.01.2025 along with all the connected matters i.e. all the petitions were directed to be listed on 31.01.2025 for further hearing. Thereafter, on 31.01.2025, during the course of argument, learned State counsel submits that the petitioners have suppressed the fact that they have approached before this Court in earlier occasion while filing separate writ petitions bearing WPS No. 470/1998, WPS No.3036/2000, WPS No.1170/2013, WPS No.2117/2014 & WPS No.7083/2017, which were disposed off by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on several dates and 8 thereafter, against the rejection orders passed by the learned Single Judge, Writ Appeals bearing Writ Appeal Nos. 410/2018 & 447/2018 have been preferred by some of the petitioners before the Division Bench. The Hon’ble Division Bench also dismissed the writ appeals, however, this important aspect has been suppressed by the petitioners and they have deliberately filed these petitions in order to get some order in their favour. 5. Upon query, when Mr. Siddharth Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner was questioned by the Court, he submits that he was not having knowledge about filing of earlier writ petitions by the petitioners and about the rejection of their respective petitions by the learned Single Judge and also by the Hon’ble Division Bench. He submits that infact, he has not been informed about their earlier round of litigation. It has further been submitted by Mr. Tiwari that he is a young lawyer and without knowing the suppression of fact by the petitioners, he has bonafidely filed these writ petitions. 6. Since, the petitioners have intentionally suppressed the fact regarding filing of the earlier petitions before this Court and also the disposal of WPS No. 470/1998, WPS No.3036/2000, WPS No.1170/2013, WPS No.2117/2014 & WPS No.7083/2017 in the earlier occasions this Court has taken it seriously. 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 9 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 petitioners are impermissible as their 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 petitions. It is well settled law that the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and the 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Narain vs. Badri Das reported in AIR 1963 SC 1558 has held in para 9 that :- “9…………………………...That may be so, but the fact still remains that two important statements which, if true, may have been of considerable assistance to the appellant in invoking the protection of S. 13(1) (a) even on the construction placed by the High Court on that section are found to be untrue, and that, in our opinion, is a very serious infirmity in the petition itself. It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and 10 setting forth grounds in applications for special leave care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. That is why we have come to the conclusion that in the present case special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked. Accordingly, special leave is revoked and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs of the respondent.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. And Another vs. Govt. of Karnataka and Another reported in AIR 1991 SC 1726 has held in para 2 as under:- “2…………………………………...On December 16- 17, 1987 two writ petitions were filed by the respective petitioners in the Karnataka High Court challenging the acquisition on the ground that the awards were not made within the stipulated time. In these two writ petitions, the Karnataka High Court granted interim stay of further proceedings in respect of the acquisition of the said lands. These petitions were dismissed by a learned single Judge of that High Court on November 29, 1988. Appeals against the decision of a learned single Judge were dismissed by the Karnataka High Court on October 6, 1989, by a Division Bench of that High Court. The 11 petitioners preferred these Special Leave Petitions, namely S. L. P. Nos. 823 and 824 of 1990 against the decision of the Division Bench of that High Court, and obtained an interim stay of dispossession therein. Whatever the ultimate effect of the stay orders, in view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, to which we have already referred earlier, it is beyond dispute that the fact of the stay orders was highly material in the determination of these Special Leave Petitions. Curiously enough, there is no reference in the Specal Leave Petitions to any of the stay orders and we came to know about these orders only when the respondents appeared in response to the notice and filed their counter affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have a direct bearing on the question raised and the nondisclosure of the same certainly amounts to suppression of material facts. On this ground alone, the Special Leave Petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well settled in law that the relief under Art. 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave Petitions.” 9. Likewise, in the matter of Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao vs. V.K. Parasaran and Others reported in AIR 1996 SC 2687, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in 11 as under:- “11……………………………...There is no "prima facie" material on the record from which any 12 inference may be drawn that either respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 2 gave "false evidence" or produced "false" or "fabricated" evidence in the Court. Considering the submissions of the applicant, stripped to their bare essentials, the factual matrix on which allegations have been made against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 do not attract the provisions of Sections 191, 192 or 193, L.P.C. The filing of the present application appears to us to be an effort to get "reopened" the case even after this Court decided Criminal Appeals Nos. 275-277 of 1993 on 16-3-1993 and dismissed the review petition also more than three years ago. Finality must attach to some stage of judicial proceedings. The course adopted by the applicant is impermissible and his application is based on mis-conception 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 licence to file misconceived or frivolous petitions. After giving our careful consideration to the submissions made at the bar as well as those contained in the memorandum of the application, we are of the opinion that this application is misconceived, untenable and has no merits whatsoever. It is accordingly dismissed.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 has held in paras 26 & 28 as under:- 13 “26.It is well settled that “fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” proclaimed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries before. Reference was made by the counsel to a leading decision of v. Jagannath¹ wherein quoting the above observations, this Court held that a judgment/decree obtained by fraud this Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu has to be treated as a nullity by every court. 28.So far as the proposition of law is concerned, there can be no two opinions. The learned counsel for the respondents also did not dispute the principles laid down in the above decisions as also in several other judgments. They, however, stated that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ratio laid down in the above cases has no application.” 11. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of All India EPF Staff Federation vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1629 has held in para 4 that :- “4.The present Special Leave Petitions challenging the orders dated 20th March, 2024 and 25th April, 2024 was filed on 14th June, 2024. The Delhi High Court's website shows that on 3rd May, 2024, the petitioner moved an application being CM Application No. 26033/2024 for early hearing of the Petition. It was obvious that the prayer for early hearing was made as the interim relief was refused and a longer date in September, 2024 was fixed. The order dated 3rd May, 2024 passed on the said 14 application shows that the Advocate appearing for the petitioner, after arguing the matter for some time, did not press the said application and, therefore, the same was dismissed. Therefore, the High Court directed that the case shall be listed on 5th September, 2024. Most importantly, in these Special Leave Petitions, which are filed on 14th June, 2024, the material fact of filing CM Application No. 26033/2024 was suppressed and even the order dated 3rd May, 2024 passed on the said application was suppressed.” 12. Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Jayaram and Others vs. Bangalore Developmenet Authority and Others reported in (2022) 12 SCC 815 has held in paras 10 & 14 as under:- “10.The jurisdiction exercised by 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 facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are 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. 14.In order to check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter and more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting 15 inconsistent orders through different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability of making a false statement, the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations were or are pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law.” 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amar Singh vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2011) 7 SCC 69 has held in para 57 as under:- “57. In one of the most celebrated cases upholding this principle, in the Court of Appeal in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commr., ex p Princess de Polignac [(1917) 1 KB 486 (CA)] K.B. Scrutton, L.J. formulated as under: “……...and 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 an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts-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 16 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." 14. In light of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that the petitioners have deliberately suppressed the material facts regarding filing of their earlier petitions and about disposal of their earlier writ petitions as well as the writ appeal filed by them, however, the said facts have been intentionally and deliberately suppressed by the petitioners in order to get the order of their choice. The jurisdiction exercised by 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 facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are 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. 15. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the suppression of material fact by the petitioners is a misconduct and for this reason alone, the present writ petitions are liable to be rejected but with a cost of Rs.50,000/- which to be born by all 17 the petitioners. The petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- before the Registry of this Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and if the said amount is not deposited before the Registry within the said time limit, then the Registry is directed to initiate proceedings against all the petitioners in order to recover the said amount, in accordance with law. 16. With this direction, all the writ petitions stand disposed off. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR