A N D v. St at e of Ut t arakhand

8. Pet it ioner challenged bot h t he orders by filing C- 482 No. 1939 of 2018 before t his Court , which was dism issed as wit hdrawn by t he pet it ioner vide order dat ed

29.10.2020. Beside t his, respondent no. 9 has also filed docum ent s, wherein, pet it ioner has filed com plaint regarding educat ional qualificat ion of respondent no. 9 before respondent no. 4 i.e. Cent ral Board of Secondary Educat ion, which aft er inquiry, have found t hat t here is no illegalit y or am biguit y in t he educat ion cert ificat es of respondent no. 9. All t hese above fact s have been concealed by t he pet it ioner before t his Court .

9. I t is apparent t hat t he pet it ioner has been set - up by t hird part ies. When t he m at t er was list ed on 19.03.2025, t his Court had queried t he counsel for t he pet it ioner and t he 6t h respondent - School. Bot h are unable t o answer as 4 t o on what dat e t he applicat ion was m ade under t he RTI Act . The Court furt her queried t he learned counsel for t he pet it ioner, as t o how he cam e t o know about t his fact of t he pet it ioner having failed in t he 11t h st andard. I t is also fort hcom ing from t he 9t h respondent t hat when t he 6t h respondent refused t o t he t ransfer cert ificat e, com plaint was lodged wit h t he CBSE Aut horit ies and all t hese issues have been act ively screened by bot h t he pet it ioner and t he 6t h respondent . That apart , t he Court perused t he docum ent m arked as Annexure A- 4, said t o be adm ission file of t he 9t h respondent . On perusal of t he sam e, it is seen t hat t he original nam e writ t en down appears t o be of one Prince Saini. The sam e is st ruck- off and t he nam e Anant Singh Saini i.e. t he nam e of t he 9t h respondent has been writ t en down.

10. No answer regarding int erpolat ion in t he nam e of respondent no. 9 in t he docum ent Annexure A- 1 has been subm it t ed eit her by t he pet it ioner or counsel respondent no. 6. Furt herm ore, t he Chief Adm inist rat ive Officer in t he office of Block Educat ion, Syalde, Dist rict Alm ora filed an affidavit , wherein, she has cat egorically held t hat she has no aut horit y t o issue inform at ion as first Appellat e Aut horit y.

11. I t has const ant ly been held by Hon’ble Suprem e Court in cat ena of j udgm ent s t hat m isleading t he Court is 5 equal t o com m it t ing fraud and anyone, who uses fraud harm s t he j ust ice syst em , and such act ions m ust be st rict ly punished t o prevent t hem from happening again and t o prot ect t he int egrit y of t he j udicial process.

12. I n t he case of Ku sh a D u r u k a v . St a t e o f Od i sh a , ( 2 0 2 4 ) 4 SCC 4 3 2 , t he Hon’ble Suprem e Court st rongly crit icized t he act of hiding im port ant fact s from t he court . The Court observed t hat m isleading t he court is equal t o com m it t ing fraud and anyone who uses fraud harm s t he j ust ice syst em , and such act ions m ust be st rict ly punished t o prevent t hem from happening again and t o prot ect t he int egrit y of t he j udicial syst em .

13. I n anot her j udgm ent of M o t i Lal So n g a r a v . Pr em Pr a k a sh @ Pa p p u , ( 2 0 1 3 ) 9 SCC 1 9 9 , t he Hon’ble Suprem e Court held t hat hiding im port ant fact s from t he like com m it t ing fraud. The Lat in phrase “ Suppressio veri, expressio falsi” was used, which m eans hiding t he t rut h is t he sam e as t elling a lie.

14. Furt her, in t he case of K . Jay a r a m & Ot h e r s v . Ba n g al o r e D e v e l o p m en t A u t h o r i t y , ( 2 0 2 2 ) 1 2 SCC 8 1 5 , t he Hon’ble Suprem e Court held t hat anyone approaching t he writ court m ust com e wit h clean hands and disclose all relevant fact s. The Court furt her observed t hat if a person hides or suppresses im port ant inform at ion t o gain an unfair advant age, it am ount s t o fraud on t he 6 court and t he ot her part y.

15. From t he fact s, as narrat ed above, it is apparent t hat pet it ioner in habit of m aking frivolous com plaint s against respondent no. 9 and his fam ily and has m isused t he forum of t his Court by filing t he present pet it ion, alt hough, his com plaint regarding educat ion qualificat ion of respondent no. 9 was already redressed by t he Cent ral Board of Secondary Educat ion m uch before filing of t his pet it ion and his com plaint t oo was dism issed by t he com pet ent court s.

16. This Court was inclined t o im pose exem plary cost on t he pet it ioner, but , is rest raining it self from im posing t he cost . But , t his Court depreciat es t he conduct of t he pet it ioner.

17. I n such view of t he m at t er, t he present PI L is dism issed.

18. No order as t o cost s. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ G. N A REN DA R, C.J. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A LOK M A H RA , J. Dt : 21 st July, 2025 UJJWAL 7