Dr. Mohammad Hamza vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical/Health Services

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the property and has applied for a license to run a clinic and his application regarding the same is pending for last more than three months.

3. Per contra, Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submits that a death has been caused in a clinic named Bagiawala hospital, which was runned by the father of the petitioner. A first information report was also lodged regarding the said incident as Case Crime No.354 of 2025 under Section 106 Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) at Police Station- Biswa, District- Sitapur. It is contended that due to non-cooperation in the investigation by the petitioner and his father, the investigation could not be completed and, therefore, the application of the petitioner is kept pending.

4. Upon the perusal of writ petition, it appears that there is suppression of material facts by the petitioner regarding the aforesaid first information report.

5. In S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar reported in (2004) 7 SCC 166, the Supreme Court observed that writ court has power 2 WRIC No. 10312 of 2025 to deny the relief prayed in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if the petitioner has suppressed a fact which is a material one, that is, one which would have had an effect on the merits of the case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are delineated below: "13. As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. It must be a matter which was material for the consideration of the court, whatever view the court may have taken [R. v. General Commrs. for the purposes of the Income Tax Act for the District of Kensington, (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)] . Thus when the liability to income tax was questioned by an applicant on the ground of her non-residence, the fact that she had purchased and was maintaining a house in the country was held to be a material fact, the suppression of which disentitled her to the relief claimed [Ibid.] . Again when in earlier proceedings before this Court, the appellant had undertaken that it would not carry on the manufacture of liquor at its distillery and the proceedings before this Court were concluded on that basis, a subsequent writ petition for renewal of the licence to manufacture liquor at the same distillery before the High Court was held to have been initiated for oblique and ulterior purposes and the interim order passed by the High Court in such subsequent application was set aside by this Court [State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the property and has applied for a license to run a clinic and his application regarding the same is pending for last more than three months.

3. Per contra, Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submits that a death has been caused in a clinic named Bagiawala hospital, which was runned by the father of the petitioner. A first information report was also lodged regarding the said incident as Case Crime No.354 of 2025 under Section 106 Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) at Police Station- Biswa, District- Sitapur. It is contended that due to non-cooperation in the investigation by the petitioner and his father, the investigation could not be completed and, therefore, the application of the petitioner is kept pending.

4. Upon the perusal of writ petition, it appears that there is suppression of material facts by the petitioner regarding the aforesaid first information report.

5. In S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar reported in (2004) 7 SCC 166, the Supreme Court observed that writ court has power 2 WRIC No. 10312 of 2025 to deny the relief prayed in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if the petitioner has suppressed a fact which is a material one, that is, one which would have had an effect on the merits of the case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are delineated below: "13. As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. It must be a matter which was material for the consideration of the court, whatever view the court may have taken [R. v. General Commrs. for the purposes of the Income Tax Act for the District of Kensington, (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)] . Thus when the liability to income tax was questioned by an applicant on the ground of her non-residence, the fact that she had purchased and was maintaining a house in the country was held to be a material fact, the suppression of which disentitled her to the relief claimed [Ibid.] . Again when in earlier proceedings before this Court, the appellant had undertaken that it would not carry on the manufacture of liquor at its distillery and the proceedings before this Court were concluded on that basis, a subsequent writ petition for renewal of the licence to manufacture liquor at the same distillery before the High Court was held to have been initiated for oblique and ulterior purposes and the interim order passed by the High Court in such subsequent application was set aside by this Court [State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co.