MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

False affidavit, Unclean hands by concealing a element facts.

Allahabad High Court

on 7 January, 2010

 AFR Court No. - 18 CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 274 of 2010 

Shiv Lochan 
Vs. 
State of U.P.  Others 

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

This is not usually a whimsical and mischievous petition though also apparently a postulant has approached this Court with soiled hands by concealing a element facts.

Though a command petition has been drafted in an harmless manner, a elementary reading of paragraphs 4 and 5 shows that he was primarily allocated as Assistant Teacher in Maharana Pratap Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Punapar Bhatauli, District Azamgarh (Presently District Mau) on 25th August, 1977 and respondent No.5 released capitulation minute on 25th March, 1982 in honour to a appointment of a petitioner. Para 6 serve shows that respondent No.5 also released another minute on 12th January, 1983 in honour to a appointment of teachers who were allocated before permanent capitulation and postulated capitulation in honour of a appointment of 4 teachers including a respondent No.8, ignoring a postulant and knowledge certificate claimed to be performed by a postulant in 1995 and afterward he has mentioned that Maharana Pratap Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Punapar Bhatauli, Mau was upgraded as Uchcha Prathmik Vidyalaya i.e. Junior High School in December, 1996. Again he has pronounced that a respondent No.5 postulated capitulation to a postulant on 30.12.1996. The use sought in a command petition is that a postulant should be given appointment to a post of Head Master in a endangered establishment that has been mentioned by a petitioner’s warn as Maharana Pratap Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Punapar Bhatauli, Mau.

However, on a closer inspection it is clear that a postulant was primarily allocated as Assistant Teacher in a secretly managed famous youth primary propagandize i.e. Maharana Pratap Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Punapar Bhatauli, Azamgarh on 25th August, 1977 (Annexure – 2 to a command petition) though on 25th March, 1982 he was allocated on quite adhoc/temporary basement as Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School of Basic Shiksha Parishad by a District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh. In sequence to join pursuant to a appointment minute antiquated 25th March, 1982, a postulant left his use from Maharana Pratap Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Punapar Bhatauli, Mau and assimilated during Junior Basic School, Azamgarh therein. Later on during some indicate of time when Maharana Pratap Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Punapar Bhatauli, Mau was upgraded, a postulant somehow performed some papers in sequence to lay his claim, after some-more than a decade, in Maharana Pratap Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Punapar Bhatauli, Mau claiming seniority with outcome from his initial appointment i.e. 25th August, 1977.

See also  Whether life convicts are entitled to get benefit of set off U/S 428 CrPC of pre-conviction detention?

It appears that formed on papers performed by a postulant after on, he approached a Director of Education claiming that he is operative during a establishment “Maharana Pratap Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Punapar Bhatauli, Mau” and is not removing income and afterwards filed command petition No.14472 of 2001 that was likely of by this Court on 18th April, 2001 directing a endangered management to confirm a matter after giving opportunity. An sequence was upheld on 7th July, 2001 by a Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Shiksha, Mau pursuant to visualisation antiquated 18.4.2001 opposite that another command petition No.38242 of 2004 was filed by some other persons along with postulant that was likely of on 14th December, 2005. It is pursuant thereto a sequence antiquated 11/15th May, 2007 was upheld by a Director Basic Education watching that Shiv Lochan, a benefaction postulant had left a establishment i.e Maharana Pratap Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Punapur, Bhatauli, Mau prolonged behind and could not have been available to join a pronounced establishment again in 1997. The effect of a pronounced sequence antiquated 11/15.5.2007 was challenged in command petition no.27602 of 2007 that was discharged by a Hon’ble Single Judge vide settlement antiquated 17th April, 2009 watching as under:

“……………Admitted position is that after postulant had left a establishment he had no regard with a establishment and another obligatory had been allocated and had been function. After 14 year underneath what strait he was available to come behind in a institution. There is no sustenance of composition in a establishment as has been sought to be finished in a benefaction case. Entire record taken in foster of postulant is blank on this score. Admitted position is that in a cavity of a postulant another obligatory had been allocated and postulant by no widen of imagination could have ipso facto returned and resume his duty. Return of postulant can't be subscribed in law. View taken by a Director of Education is totally scold view, as postulant was not during all maintaining his garnishment on progressing post and pronounced post had already substantively been filled adult and in this credentials by no widen of imagination he could have been engrossed and practiced in a establishment opposite any other cavity as per U.P. Act No.6 of 1979. There is no sustenance of absorption/ composition there and in box there is uninformed cavity afterwards uninformed preference move will have to be undertaken.”

Aggrieved by a aforesaid settlement of a Hon’ble Single Judge, a postulant elite Special Appeal No. (847) of 2009 that has been discharged by a Division Bench vide sequence antiquated 30th July, 2009.

See also  Whether the court can acquit accused in case of circumstantial evidence if the prosecution fails to prove motive for the offence?

Without disclosing a above contribution and holding pleadings in a dubious manner, as forked out above, this command petition has been filed by a postulant saying that this is a initial command petition being filed by him seeking use for appointment on a post of Head Master in a establishment endangered i.e. Maharana Pratap Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Punapar Bhatauli, Mau.

In my perspective by not disclosing a factum of progressing command petition no.27602 of 2007 in a benefaction one, a postulant is guilty of coming this Court with soiled hands and of dissimulation of element facts.

In Ram Saran Vs. IG of Police, CRPF and others, (2006) 2 SCC 541, a Apex Court celebrated “A chairman who seeks equity contingency come with purify hands. He, who comes to a justice with fake claims, can't beg equity nor would a justice be fit to practice equity office in his favour. A chairman who seeks equity contingency act in a satisfactory and estimable manner. ……………”

In Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and others, 2003 (Suppl.) 3 SCR 352, it was reiterated after referring to several progressing decisions of a Apex Court that rascal falsification and dissimulation of element fact vitiates all honest acts. In State of Andhra Pradesh another Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao, AIR 2005 SC 3110, a Apex Court after referring to several progressing decisions hold that termination of a element request would also volume to a rascal on a Court. The same perspective has been reiterated in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra others, AIR 2005 SC 3330. In R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala others, JT 2004(1) SC 88 a Apex Court celebrated that a person, who seeks equity, contingency act in a satisfactory and estimable manner. In Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi Vs. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody, AIR 1964 SC 345, it was hold that if there appears on a partial of a person, who has approached a Court, any try to overreach or trick a Court by fake or wrong statements or by self-denial loyal information that would have a temperament on a doubt of practice of a discretion, a Court would be fit in refusing to practice a option or if a option has been exercised in revoking a leave to interest postulated even during a time of conference of a appeal. The same perspective was reiterated and followed in Vijay Syal another Vs. State of Punjab others (2003) 9 SCC 401.

See also  Sabarimala Temple Ayappa Temple Ban on women entry: Where a man can enter, even a women can go: SC

A contractor who has approached this Court in additional typical estimable office with soiled hands, his control creates him probable to compensate an model cost for abusing a routine of a Court besides wasting changed time of a Court that could have been employed for other some-more derelict worker portion cases. Moreover, he is also guilty of irreverence a fake affidavit. Thus a postulant contingency be saddled with a guilt of complicated cost so that in destiny such thing might not recur.

The command petition is accordingly discharged with cost quantified during Rs.25,000/-. The cost shall be deposited by a postulant within dual months with a Registrar General of this Court. In box of disaster by a postulant to compensate a volume of cost, it shall be recovered as balance of land income for that a Registrar General of this Court shall take suitable steps.

Order Date :- 7.1.2010 KA


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

CopyRight @ MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Sabarimala Temple Ayappa Temple Ban on women entry: Where a man can enter, even a women can go: SC
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation