Doors of justice closed to those who suppress material facts, Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court recently reiterated that suppression of material facts would disentitle a litigant to any relief, more so when the Court exercises its writ jurisdiction..While dismissing such a petition, Justice Shekhar B Saraf observed,.“… the doors of justice would be closed for a litigant whose case is based on falsehood or suppression of material facts. Fraud and justice never dwell together. They are alien to each other. Fraud pollutes the sanctity, regularity, orderliness and solemnity of the judicial proceedings. It is the bounden duty of the Court to keep the stream of justice absolutely clean.”.The petitioner before the Court, who was a government school employee, had objected to the stoppage of his salary, as intimated to him by a letter in July. However, the Court declined to entertain his plea after it found that the petitioner had suppressed information pertaining to unsanctioned leaves taken by him over the years..As noted in the order,.“For him to get justice, it is required that he comes before this court with clean hands. Suppression of all the ‘leaves’ that he has taken and admitted to is a material fact that is relevant in the present case as he is challenging the salary overdrawn by him, as a result of the unsanctioned leave taken by him in the school. .Without producing these documents in Court, he has tried to create an impression that great injustice has been done to him by the school authorities for stopping the salary overdrawn on account of leave.”.The Court opined that such suppression of material facts indicated that the petitioner had approached the Court without good faith. In such circumstances, courts have consistently held that the litigant would not be deserving of any relief..“… Courts have consistently taken the view that one who approaches the Court must come with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of the Court to keep the stream of justice absolutely clean. Anyone who approaches must give full and fair disclosure of all the materials. The Courts must not allow anyone to abuse the court process. In case the petitioner conceals anything that is known to be material such an action would lead to an inference of fraud, and even if not fraud, definitely would lead to a presumption that the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands..….The principle of uberrima fides – abundant good faith – as stated in The King –v- The General Commissioners for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the District of Kensington reported in (1917) 1 KB 486 applies in the present case. A petitioner who does not bring on record the relevant true facts before the court, does not deserve to get any relief from the court….… It is to be further noted that the writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction and the court applying its judicial discretion may refuse to entertain this writ petition when appraised of the facts that the writ petitioner has not acted uberrima fides.”.This imperative assumes more significance when the Court’s extraordinary power to issue writs is invoked. In such circumstances, erring litigants must also be penalised with exemplary costs, the judge observed..“One must be even more careful when one approaches this court in its extraordinary jurisdiction for seeking a writ of mandamus and no person can be permitted to adopt dubious, dishonest and fraudulent means and make false averments or conceal the facts while submitting such a writ petition. .If a person does so, not only is the petitioner not entitled to any relief from the Court but should be subject to exemplary costs so as to deter future litigants from pursuing a similar course of action.”.Therefore, the Court proceeded to dismiss the petition. However, considering a compassionate plea made by the petitioner’s counsel for leniency, the judge restricted the costs imposed to Rs. 5,000. The petitioner was directed to pay the amount to the West Bengal Legal Legal Services Authority within two weeks..Read the order: