Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India. The relevant paragraph of judgment reported in Prestige Ligh

1. Brief facts of the case are that plot no.385, area 0.628 hectare is recorded as pond and plot no.370, area 0.097 hectare is recorded as main marg.

2. The instant public interest litigation has been filed for the following relief:- "1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents authorities to take necessary action for removing the illegal encroachment made by respondent no. 4 & 5 encroachment on (Public Utility Land) i.e. Arazi No. 385 (Pond) & 370 (Marg) situated in Village Bhikharipur, Adhanpur, Pargana- Ghisuva, Tehsil- Machhali Sahar, District- Jaunpur. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the application dated 21.09.2024 and restore the status of Arazi No. 385 (Pond) & 370 (Marg) of Public Utility Land by removing the illegal encroachment made by respondent no. 4 & 5. (Annexure No.2 to this petition)."

3. This Court on 24.2.2025 passed the following order:- "1. Objection filed on behalf of respondent No.5 is taken on record. Instruction filed on behalf of State is also taken on record.

2. Mr Nand Lal Maurya, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents on the basis of the instruction submitted that plot No.385 area 0.628 hectare is recorded as pond in the revenue record and plot No. 370 area 0.097 hectare is recorded as chak marg. He further submitted that during spot inspection made by the authorities, it has been found that fisheries lease has been executed in favour of Smt. Phoola Devi wife of Bankey Lal on 29.03.2016 for the period of ten years. He further submitted that certain encroachments have been found over plot No.370 and persons who have made encroachment have given undertaking that after cutting the standing crops the encroachment over plot No.370 will be removed.

3. Mr. Mool Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that respondent No.5 is son of Smt. Phoola Devi, who has granted fisheries lease in respect to the plot No.385. He further submitted that petitioner has filed application/ complaint in respect to the lease executed in favour of the mother of respondent No.5 but no averment has been made in the instant public interest litigation regarding the fisheries lease executed in favour of the mother of respondent No.5 in respect to plot No.385, as such instant public interest litigation should be dismissed with cost. He submitted that in paragraph no. 27 of the affidavit filed in support of the objection, particulars of the criminal cases which are pending against the petitioner are mentioned as such public interest litigation cannot be entertained in view of the criminal cases pending against the petiotner.

4. Mr. Nand Lal Maurya, learned Standing Counsel is directed to serve the copy of the instruction upon learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall file reply to the facts mentioned in the instruction as well as reply to the objection/ affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.5 within three weeks.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall address the court on the next date as to why the cost should not be imposed against the petitioner for concealment of material facts in the instant public interest litigation.

7. Put up this matter as fresh on 17.03.2025."

4. No reply/counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner regarding pendency of five criminal cases against the petitioner as well as regarding execution of fishery lease in favour of mother of respondent no.5 in respect to plot no.385, as such, there is no option except to dismiss the instant public interest litigation with cost due to concealment of material fact.

5. There is no dispute about the fact that plot nos.370 is recorded as pond and plot no.385 is recorded as main marg in the revenue records. In paragraph no.27 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.3, it is mentioned that against the petitioner-Mool Chand Saroj, five criminal cases are pending before the court concerned. It is also mentioned in the counter affidavit that fisheries lease has been executed in respect to plot no.385 in favour of mother of respondent no.5 but the aforementioned fact has been concealed by petitioner in the instant public interest litigation.

6. The law relating to concealment of material fact in the judicial proceeding has been considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449, Prestige Lights Limited vs. State Bank of India. The relevant paragraph of judgment reported in Prestige Lights Limited (supra) is as follows:- "35. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible."

7. In the public interest litigation, the law is also strict if petitioner of public interest litigation is facing criminal cases and there is no disclosure in the public interest litigation about the pendency of five criminal cases against him.

8. Petitioner has misused the process of law by filing the public interest litigation concealing the material facts.

9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant public interest litigation is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner in the Gaon Sabha account maintained at District Jaunpur, within a period of 6 weeks from today, failing which the same shall be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue by the District Magistrate concerned. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 C.Prakash CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Brief facts of the case are that plot no.385, area 0.628 hectare is recorded as pond and plot no.370, area 0.097 hectare is recorded as main marg.

2. The instant public interest litigation has been filed for the following relief:- "1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents authorities to take necessary action for removing the illegal encroachment made by respondent no. 4 & 5 encroachment on (Public Utility Land) i.e. Arazi No. 385 (Pond) & 370 (Marg) situated in Village Bhikharipur, Adhanpur, Pargana- Ghisuva, Tehsil- Machhali Sahar, District- Jaunpur. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the application dated 21.09.2024 and restore the status of Arazi No. 385 (Pond) & 370 (Marg) of Public Utility Land by removing the illegal encroachment made by respondent no. 4 & 5. (Annexure No.2 to this petition)."

3. This Court on 24.2.2025 passed the following order:- "1. Objection filed on behalf of respondent No.5 is taken on record. Instruction filed on behalf of State is also taken on record.

2. Mr Nand Lal Maurya, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents on the basis of the instruction submitted that plot No.385 area 0.628 hectare is recorded as pond in the revenue record and plot No. 370 area 0.097 hectare is recorded as chak marg. He further submitted that during spot inspection made by the authorities, it has been found that fisheries lease has been executed in favour of Smt. Phoola Devi wife of Bankey Lal on 29.03.2016 for the period of ten years. He further submitted that certain encroachments have been found over plot No.370 and persons who have made encroachment have given undertaking that after cutting the standing crops the encroachment over plot No.370 will be removed.

3. Mr. Mool Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that respondent No.5 is son of Smt. Phoola Devi, who has granted fisheries lease in respect to the plot No.385. He further submitted that petitioner has filed application/ complaint in respect to the lease executed in favour of the mother of respondent No.5 but no averment has been made in the instant public interest litigation regarding the fisheries lease executed in favour of the mother of respondent No.5 in respect to plot No.385, as such instant public interest litigation should be dismissed with cost. He submitted that in paragraph no. 27 of the affidavit filed in support of the objection, particulars of the criminal cases which are pending against the petitioner are mentioned as such public interest litigation cannot be entertained in view of the criminal cases pending against the petiotner.

4. Mr. Nand Lal Maurya, learned Standing Counsel is directed to serve the copy of the instruction upon learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall file reply to the facts mentioned in the instruction as well as reply to the objection/ affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.5 within three weeks.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall address the court on the next date as to why the cost should not be imposed against the petitioner for concealment of material facts in the instant public interest litigation.

7. Put up this matter as fresh on 17.03.2025."

4. No reply/counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner regarding pendency of five criminal cases against the petitioner as well as regarding execution of fishery lease in favour of mother of respondent no.5 in respect to plot no.385, as such, there is no option except to dismiss the instant public interest litigation with cost due to concealment of material fact.

5. There is no dispute about the fact that plot nos.370 is recorded as pond and plot no.385 is recorded as main marg in the revenue records. In paragraph no.27 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.3, it is mentioned that against the petitioner-Mool Chand Saroj, five criminal cases are pending before the court concerned. It is also mentioned in the counter affidavit that fisheries lease has been executed in respect to plot no.385 in favour of mother of respondent no.5 but the aforementioned fact has been concealed by petitioner in the instant public interest litigation.

6. The law relating to concealment of material fact in the judicial proceeding has been considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449, Prestige Lights Limited vs. State Bank of India. The relevant paragraph of judgment reported in Prestige Lights Limited (supra) is as follows:- "35. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible."

7. In the public interest litigation, the law is also strict if petitioner of public interest litigation is facing criminal cases and there is no disclosure in the public interest litigation about the pendency of five criminal cases against him.

8. Petitioner has misused the process of law by filing the public interest litigation concealing the material facts.

9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant public interest litigation is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner in the Gaon Sabha account maintained at District Jaunpur, within a period of 6 weeks from today, failing which the same shall be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue by the District Magistrate concerned. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 C.Prakash CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad