Zatoon Begum and others V. Union Territory of J&K and others

WP(C)/1540/2020

AI Insights

The case involved a writ petition filed by the Panchs of ward No. 7 against the official respondents, including the Union Territory of J&K, alleging inaction on a resolution passed against the Sarpanch for mismanagement. The petitioners claimed that despite their resolution, no action was taken to convene a Gram Panchayat meeting. However, it was revealed that the meeting had already been convened and actions taken, which the petitioners failed to disclose. The court dismissed the petition for concealment of facts and imposed costs, while also referring serious allegations of corruption to the Director of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj for further investigation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 813228 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India, Hari Narain v. Badri Das, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka, Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., Moti Lal Songara v. Prem Prakash @ Pappu, Amar Singh v. Union of India, Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Zarina Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam, Mani Ram v. Janak Singh & Ors, ABCD v. Union of India, Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan, Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited, Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana
• Laws Referred To: J&K Panchayati Raj Act, 1989, J&K Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SEEMA SHEKHER
• Assessee Lawyers: S S AHMED
• Keywords: Corruption; Gram Panchayat; No Confidence Motion; Panchayat; Sarpanch; MGNERAGA Scheme
• Section: 7

Judgement Text

" Serial No. 104 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 1540/2020 (O&M) (Through Video Conferencing) Zatoon Begum and others …Petitioner(s) Through:- Mr. S.S. Ahmed, Advocate v/s Union Territory of J&K and others ….Respondent(s) Through:- Ms. Seema Shekher, Sr. AAG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE ORDER 1. The petitioners, who claimed themselves to be the Panchs of ward No. 7, had approached this Court praying that official respondents be directed to take action on the notice/resolution dated 09.09.2020, passed in terms of Section 7 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Act, 1989 and Rule 81 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. 2. The grievance was that despite sending the resolution and following the same, the official respondents have not taken any steps to call meeting of the Gram Panchayat. All the panchs had passed a resolution against the Sarpanch because of mismanagement in the working of the Panchayat. 2 WP(C) No. 1540/2020 3. The matter was listed in Court on October 7, 2020. 4. Keeping in view the urgency expressed by learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the official respondents was requested to seek instructions and the matter was kept for today. 5. When the case was taken up today, Ms. Seema Shekher, learned Sr. AAG submitted that the petitioners have concealed material facts from this Court. On the resolution sent by the petitioners immediate action was taken by the competent authority. Meeting of the Gram Panchayat was called on 24.09.2020 and appropriate action was taken. Though, the present petition was filed in this Court much later but this material fact has been concealed and process of law has been put into motion without there being any grievance left. There are other urgent matters to be taken up during the COVID-19 Pandemic but the petitioners have been able to not only waste the time of this Court but even the attention of the State machinery was also diverted on an issue which already stood resolved. 6. In response, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he did not have the knowledge about this fact. He could not dispute that the writ petition was filed on 29.09.2020 after the meeting of the Gram Panchayat had already been held, however, he submitted that the petitioners being illiterate, they may be allowed to withdraw the present petition. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, even if the petitioners are allowed to withdraw the writ petition, still they cannot be allowed to go scot-free as they had approached this Court by filing the present petition by concealing material facts. It could not be disputed by the learned 3 WP(C) No. 1540/2020 counsel for the petitioners that before the filing of the present writ petition in this Court, the grievance of the petitioners stood redressed. Still the writ petition was filed. 8. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has time and again commented adversely on a litigant who approaches the Court with unclean hands. In Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India, (2011) 6 SCC 145, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while declining relief to the petitioners therein, who did not approach the court with clean hands, opined as under: \"16. In our view, the appellants deserve to be non suited because they have not approached the Court with clean hands. The plea of inadvertent mistake put forward by the learned senior counsel for the appellants and their submission that the Court may take lenient view and order regularisation of the admissions already made sounds attractive but does not merit acceptance. Each of the appellants consciously made a statement that it had been granted recognition by the NCTE, which necessarily implies that recognition was granted in terms of Section 14 of the Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the 2007 Regulations. Those managing the affairs of the appellants do not belong to the category of innocent, illiterate/uneducated persons, who are not conversant with the relevant statutory provisions and the court process. The very fact that each of the appellants had submitted application in terms of Regulation 7 and made itself available for inspection by the team constituted by WRC, Bhopal shows that they were fully aware of the fact that they can get recognition only after fulfilling the conditions specified in the Act and the Regulations and that WRC, Bhopal had not granted recognition to them. Notwithstanding this, they made bold statement that they had been granted recognition by the competent authority and thereby succeeded in persuading this 4 WP(C) No. 1540/2020 Court to entertain the special leave petitions and pass interim orders. The minimum, which can be said about the appellants is that they have not approached the Court with clean hands and succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently false statement. Therefore, they are not entitled to relief under Article 136 of the Constitution. This view finds support from plethora of precedents. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka (1991) 3 SCC 261 and large number of other cases, this Court denied relief to the petitioner/appellant on the ground that he had not approached the Court with clean hands. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das (supra), the Court revoked the leave granted to the appellant and observed: \" It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements made by the appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained special leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterises as misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme Court may come to the 5 WP(C) No. 1540/2020 conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked.\" 9. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka’s case (supra), the Court noted that the appellant had concealed the fact that the award could not be made by the Land Acquisition Officer within the time prescribed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act because of the stay order passed by the High Court and observed: \" ......Curiously enough, there is no reference in the special leave petitions to any of the stay orders and we came to know about these orders only when the respondents appeared in response to the notice and filed their counter- affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have a direct bearing on the question raised and the non-disclosure of the same certainly amounts to suppression of material facts. On this ground alone, the special leave petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the special leave petitions.\" 10. In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114, Hon’ble the Supreme Court noticed the progressive decline in the values of life and observed: \" For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. \"satya\" (truth) and \"ahinsa\" (non- violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth 6 WP(C) No. 1540/2020 constituted an integral part of the justice- delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. 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.\" 11. In Moti Lal Songara v. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and another, (2013) 9 SCC 199, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, considering the issue regarding concealment of facts before the court, while observing that \"court is not a laboratory where children come to play, opined as under : \"18. The second limb of the submission is whether in the obtaining factual matrix, the order passed by the High Court discharging the accused respondent is justified in law. We have clearly stated that though the respondent was fully aware about the fact that charges had been framed against him by the learned trial Judge, yet he did not bring the same to the notice of the revisional court hearing the revision against the order taking cognizance. It is a clear case of suppression. It was within the special knowledge of the accused. Any one 7 WP(C) No. 1540/2020 who takes recourse to method of suppression in a court of law, is, in actuality, playing fraud with the court, and the maxim supressio veri, expression faisi, i.e., suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. We are compelled to say so as there has been a calculated concealment of the fact before the revisional court. It can be stated with certitude that the accused- respondent tried to gain advantage by such factual suppression. The fraudulent intention is writ large. In fact, he has shown his courage of ignorance and tried to play possum. The High Court, as we have seen, applied the principle \"when infrastructure collapses, the superstructure is bound to collapse\". However, as the order has been obtained by practising fraud and suppressing material fact before a court of law to gain advantage, the said order cannot be allowed to stand.\" 12. Similar view was expressed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Amar Singh v. Union of India and others, (2011) 7 SCC 69, Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2013) 2 SCC 398, Zarina Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam alias R. Amarnathan, (2015) 1 SCC 705, High Court of Punjab & Haryana in M/s Manu Sharma and Company v. State of Haryana and others, reported as 2017(1) RCR (Civil) 608 and by this Court in Mani Ram v. Janak Singh & Ors, reported as 2019 (2) JKJ 565. 13. In a recent judgment in ABCD v. Union of India & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 52, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in matter where material facts had been concealed, while issuing notice to the petitioner therein, exercising its suo-motu contempt power observed as under : 8 WP(C) No. 1540/2020 “15. Making a false statement on oath is an offence punishable under Section 181 of the IPC while furnishing false information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person is punishable under Section 182 of the IPC. These offences by virtue of Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code can be taken cognizance of by any court only upon a proper complaint in writing as stated in said Section. In respect of matters coming under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code, in Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan etc., (1987) 3 SCC 367 prosecution was directed to be launched after prima facie satisfaction was recorded by this Court. 16. It has also been laid down by this Court in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421 that a person who makes an attempt to deceive the court, interferes with the administration of justice and can be held guilty of contempt of court. In that case a husband who had filed a fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings was found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to two weeks imprisonment. It was observed as under: \"1. The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. 2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in 9 WP(C) No. 1540/2020 similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice. 14. The legal position thus is that if the publication be with intent to deceive the court or one made with an intention to defraud, the same would be contempt, as it would interfere with administration of justice. It would, in any case, tend to interfere with the same. This would definitely be so if a fabricated document is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the case at hand the fabricated document was apparently to deceive the court; the intention to defraud is writ large. Anil Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt.\" In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and others, (2008) 12 SCC 481 it was observed: \"39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs., (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA) is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and \"clean breast\" cannot hold a writ of the court with \"soiled hands\". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for 10 WP(C) No. 1540/2020 contempt of court for abusing the process of the court.\" In Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and others, (1995) 3 SCC 757 filing of a false affidavit was the basis for initiation of action in contempt jurisdiction and the concerned persons were punished.” 14. It was held in the judgments referred to above that one of the two cherished basic values by Indian society for centuries is “satya” (truth) and the same has been put under the carpet by the petitioner. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system in the pre Independence era, however, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, the values have gone down and now a litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court. They have no respect for the truth. The principle has been evolved to meet the challenges posed by this new breed of litigants. Now it is well settled 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. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim supressio veri, expression faisi, i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. Its nothing but degradation of moral values in the society, may be because of our education system. Now we are more happy to hear anything except truth; read anything except truth; speak anything except truth and believe anything except truth. 11 WP(C) No. 1540/2020 Someone rightly said that `Lies are very sweet, while truth is bitter, that’s why most people prefer telling lies.’ 15. Considering the aforesaid facts and enunciation of law, in my opinion, the petitioners cannot be allowed to withdraw the writ petition and go free after their effort to pollute the stream of justice. Hence, the same is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-, each on the seven petitioners. 16. The cost shall be deposited by them, within a period of two months, with the J&K Legal Services Authority. In case of failure firstly the Drector Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Jammu shall ensure compliance of the order. If still not complied with, the Member Secretary, J&K Legal Services Authority shall be entitled to file application before this court for execution of the order. 17. The matter cannot be left here also as this court can’t shut its eyes to the averments made in the writ petition, which are supported by an affidavit of the petitioners. The allegations as contained in para Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 in the petition are extracted below :- “Para No. 4: That the seven petitioners who are the Panchs of different wards, engage the poor people of their wards, who are below poverty line as labourers under MGNERAGA scheme and after the completion of work, the labourers starts pressing hard for their wages from the petitioners and when petitioners approaches the respondent no. 6, she in turn asked the applicants to pay her Rs.1,00,000/-, as her commission and thereafter, the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- will be released as 12 WP(C) No. 1540/2020 wage payment in favour of all seven wards of Panchyat Halqua Upper Kandi. Para No. 5: That the petitioner No.6, flatly refused to make any payment to Sarpanch Panchyat Halqua Upper Kandi (respondent no. 6), but due to the pressure exerted by the labourers upon the petitioners, all the petitioners collected R. 1,00,000/- from their personal pocket and paid it to the Sarpanch Panchyat Halqua Upper Kandi namely Parveen Akhter (Respondent no. 6) on 04-04-2020 through petitioners No.6, in presence of her husband Mohd Ayoub Khan and their son namely Shahnawaz Ayoub. Para No. 7: That once again the different works were executed by the panchs in their respective wards and once again the grant was given by the Govt. for payment of material component under MGNERAGA Scheme. The respondent no. 6 convene a meeting with all the petitioners at her residence on 07-07- 2020 and once again ask all the petitioners to pay her commission of Rs. 5 Lakhs and thereafter, the payment of material component will be released for the different wards of Panchyat Halqua Upper Kandi. Para No. 8: That this time the petitioners told the respondent no. 6 that they will not pay even a single penny to her and therefore she had not released the material component amount in favour of different wards of Panchayat Halqua Upper Kandi and instead of releasing the amount, she called the GRS Panchyat Halqua Upper Kandi Mr. Shah Hussain to her residence along with all the records of Panchyat Halqua upper Kandi on 17-08- 13 WP(C) No. 1540/2020 2020 and had snatched all the records of the above said Panchayat from the GRS and the said record is still lying with respondent no. 6 at her private residence. With regard to the aforementioned incident GRS Panchyat Halqua Upper Kandi had already submitted a written complaint respondent no. 3 on 18-08-2020. Copy of which is enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-II.” (sic) 18. A perusal of the pleadings in the aforesaid paragraphs show that it is a case where money is exchanging hands among the Panchs and Sarpanchs. Allegations in the writ petition are supported by affidavit. Apparently, as a bounty for various works being executed. As a result of this, the residents of the gram sabha area may be the sufferers, as with the sharing of the funds allocated by the government for development in the area, the same may not have been utilized for the purpose these were earmarked or the poor laborers may have been paid lessor wages than they were entitled to or the payment without there being any work executed on ground. Object of decentralization of power was not to take corruption to the grass root level but to ensure that there is local participation of the people in the development projects. They also feel empowered. But the facts in the case speak otherwise. Despite there being serious allegations in the petition, the competent authority thought it appropriate to keep silence as is the usual practice and let the matter die down. Public money, contributed by the tax payers cannot be allowed to be squandered like this. The matter needs to be inquired into. It is not simplicitor a case of passing of no confidence motion against the Sarpanch. The allegations are quite serious. The matter should be looked into by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Jammu and the same should be taken to the logical end. 14 WP(C) No. 1540/2020 19. A copy of the order be sent to Secretary to the Government, Department of Law & Justice, Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Jammu and Member Secretary, J&K State Legal Services Authority, by the Registrar Judicial of this Court. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE JAMMU 09.10.2020 SUNIL-I Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.10.14 13:55 I am approving this document "