P.S. R.K. Pur, Dist.-Gomati v. The Chief Secretary, State of Tripura

They contended in the Writ Petition that there is a pucca public road in Old Plot No.1860, Khatian No.3/ of Moauja Radhakishorepur Reserved Forest, tehsil-Dhwajanagar, revenue Circle-Udaipur, that it is public road and recorded as a ‘road’ in the Jhatian No.3/1, and that the said road is connecting Tepania to Barabhaiya villages and is meant for public use. 5) According to petitioners, this public road belongs to Government of Tripura and the Public Works Department (R&B) of the State Government is maintaining it. Page 3 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB 6) They claimed that the said road has been existence for about 50 years, but in June 2025, the said road had been blocked by the officials of the District Hospital of Gomati District by constructing iron made pillars and installing tin sheets. The petitioners claim that they objected to this blockage of the road. They contend free movement of public cannot be prevented on such a public road. 7) After giving a representation dt.8.7.2025 and issuing a legal notice dt.8.12.2025, which did not elicit any response from the respondents, they filed the Writ Petition (PIL). 8) The petitioners impleaded the PWD Department officials (respondent nos.1-3), the Health and Family Welfare Department officials (respondent no.4), the Chief Medical Officer, Gomati District (respondent no.5), the Medical Superintendent, Gomati District Hospital (respondent no.6), the Secretary, Revenue Department (respondent no.7) and the District Magistrate and Collector, Gomati District (respondent no.8). The events after filing of the Writ Petition: 9) When this case was first listed on 10.2.2026, this Court issued notice to all respondents and Sri Mangal Debbarma, Additional Government Advocate, accepted notice for all respondents. 10) This Court directed listing of the case on 2.3.2026 and directed that counter affidavits be filed by all respondents by the said date. The stand of the respondents: 11) The Dy. Secretary of the PWD Department filed a counter affidavit dt.27.2.2026 on behalf of all the respondents. Page 4 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB 12) He admitted that there was an encroachment upon the subject road passing through the premises of the Gomati District Hospital; and that the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Udaipur had addressed a communication dt.17.2.2026 (Annexure-R/1) to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur Sub- Division, Gomati requesting appropriate action for removal of the said illegal encroachment in accordance with law; and that further action by the said official is awaited. 13) No official of any other Department filed any Counter affidavit separately. The order dt.2.3.2026 passed by this Court: 14) Basing on this affidavit, this court passed an order on 2.3.2026 finding fault with the Respondent nos.4-6 for indulging illegal encroachment of the public road inconveniencing the residents by putting pillars and fencing of tin sheets. The respondent no.8 was directed to ensure that the needed steps be taken to remove the said encroachment. This Court also impleaded the Chief Secretary of the State of Tripura suo motu as respondent no.9 in the Writ Petition and requested him to ensure that the respondent nos.4-6 remove the said encroachment. Direction was given to respondents 8 and 9 to file counter affidavits in the matter. The counter affidavit of the respondent no.8 (District Magistrate and Collector, Gomati District: 15) On 24.3.2026, the respondent no.8 filed an affidavit stating that demolition of the structures erected was carried out and a demolition report dt.10.3.2026 was also filed by him. Page 5 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB The counter affidavit of the respondent no.9 ( the Chief Secretary, State of Tripura): 16) But the Chief Secretary, State of Tripura (respondent no.9) filed an affidavit on 3.4.2026 revealing certain startling facts not disclosed in the previous counter affidavit dt.27.2.2026 of the Dy. Secretary, PWD (R&B) Department and also that of the District Collector (respondent no.8) filed on

24.3.2026. 17) We shall now set out these facts below. According to the counter affidavit of the Chief Secretary: a) The subject road traverse through the District Hospital, Gomati district premises connecting NH-08 with east Barabhaiya which is at the backside of the District Hospital , Gomati; b) The said road had been in existence much prior to the establishment of the District Hospital, Gomati which became operational in 2012. c) Inside the Hospital premises, Maternity and Child Care (MCH) Wing and District Early Intervention wing (DEIC) are located on one side of the road and on the other side of the road is the office of the Medical Superintendent along with residential quarters adjacent to the road; A map was also filed as Annexure R-2; d) As the road passes through the Hospital premises, plying of heavy vehicles like trucks and buses through the road was causing Page 6 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB severe inconvenience to the patients, mainly women and infants/children admitted in the Maternity and Child Care Wing; e) There were also several instances of breaking of grills and glasses in Govt. Staff quarters by unknown elements along with stealing of valuable items such as electric wires, Generator Battery, diesel oil and parts of Air Conditioners raising concern of safety and security of patients, Doctors and staff members residing in the Hospital premises; f) The Medical Superintendent of the District Hospital had lodged FIRs on 2.4.2022 and 16.9.022 and a GD Entry was also made on 2.6.2023 regarding thefts; g) On 9.8.023,a person by name Biplab Debnath was also caught red-handed while stealing electric wires from the Hospital quarters; These documents were filed as Annexure R-3; h) So the Medical Superintendent , District Hospital, Gomati approached the Block Development Officer, Tepania R.D. Block requesting for closure of the village road traversing through the hospital premises through a letter dt.11.7.2024 and also approached the Executive Engineer, Udaipur Division, PWD(R&B) on 5.11.2025 for closure of the same road citing safety and security of the hospital; these documents were filed as Annexure R/4; i) Considering the safety and security within the hospital premises, a decision was taken in the Rogi Kalyan Samiti (RKS) meeting dt.2.12.2025 chaired by the respondent no.8 and a Page 7 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB direction was given to the Executive director, Udaipur Division, PWD (R&B) for closure of the road at the back side of the hospital premises permanently with brick boundary wall within 5 days for the safety and security of the hospital. The Minutes of the meeting dt.27.12.2025 is filed as Annexure –R/5. j) Subsequently NOC was also obtained from the Gram Panchayats (Pradhan) of Tepania, Barabhaiya and Pura Barabhaiya Panchayats by the Medical Superintendent through the BDO, Tepania RD Block vide letter dt.27.5.2025. k) Only thereafter, the road was closed. 18) The Chief Secretary (Respondent no.9) has also stated that the respondent no.8 had directed the Rural Development Department to construct an alternative road under MNREGA for public convenience and that the said alternative road was also completed on 13.2.2025. The said road, according to him, is 65m long and it provides a shorter and direct access to the NH-8 road. He stated that in due course, this is proposed to be black topped for better vehicular movement. 19) Once the respondents have provided an alternative road to residents of Tepania like the petitioners to access the NH-8 road, they cannot insist that they should be permitted to use the subject road merely because the record of rights or the Khatian record it as a Public road. The consideration by the Court: 20) From the above, it is clear that only to prevent severe inconvenience due to passing of vehicles including heavy vehicles with the accompanying sound and vehicular pollution to mothers and children and Page 8 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB other patients in the District Hospital, Gomati, and also keeping in view the incidents of theft of valuables from the quarters located in the Hospital premises, the decision to close the road passing through the said Hospital premises was taken, and it was then got closed after consultation with the respective Gram Panchayats and Rogi Kalyan Samiti (RKS). 21) Thus there was ample justification for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to close the subject road. 22) The petitioners cannot claim ignorance of the fact that the subject road traverses through the District Hospital, Gomati and that there is a Maternity and Child wing (MCH) located on one side of the road. But they suppressed this crucial and material information from the Court in their pleading in the Writ Petition. 23) The petitioners, in our opinion, cannot be oblivious to the severe inconvenience to mothers and infants/children admitted in the MCH Wing and expect them to suffer when heavy trucks and other vehicles cause noise and pollution while passing on the road portion passing through the Hospital premises. 24) The fact that the subject road was a public road in certain official records cannot alone be the determinative factor for allowing men and vehicles to pass through it because the women and infants admitted in the Maternity and Child Wing require peace and quiet for their health, and their interests prevail over that of the petitioners. Since an alternative road has been provided to access the National Highway, no serious prejudice or inconvenience can be claimed to have been caused to the petitioners. Page 9 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB 25) But the petitioners suppressed material facts from this Court and secured from the Court an order on 2.3.2026 to demolish the structures erected on the subject road for good and valid reasons. This unconscionable conduct of the petitioners cannot be countenanced. 26) In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P1., it was held that persons suppressing material facts and securing orders from the Court cannot be granted any relief. It was declared: “2. 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. … … …

6. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath2 the Court held that where a preliminary decree was obtained by withholding an important document from the court, the party concerned deserves to be thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

7. In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI3 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