Srinagar, Jun 07: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh on Friday held that a court will be failing in its duty if it does not reject a petition where a litigant has suppressed or distorted facts.
The observation was recorded by a division bench comprising Justices Tashi Rabstan and M A Chowdhary in an appeal by the J&K government against a 2016 High Court judgment.
The court had then asked the state to allow Masrat Jan, a lady constable, to resume her duty despite she having tendered resignation after remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty.
The contention of the counsel for Masrat said that she had tendered resignation under ‘compelling circumstances’, citing security concerns.
The state on the other hand said that the lady cop had “very conveniently withheld facts from the writ court”.
The bench after hearing the parties held that a writ remedy is an equitable one. While exercising extraordinary power, a writ court certainly bears in mind the conduct of the party, who invokes the jurisdiction of the court.
It stressed “the litigant before the writ court must come with clean hands, clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. He/she should disclose all facts without suppressing anything. Litigants cannot be allowed to play ‘hide and seek’ or to ‘pick and choose’ the facts he/she likes to disclose and to suppress/conceal other facts.”
Suppression of concealment of material facts is not an advocacy, said the bench adding “it is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction.”
It observed “if a litigant does not disclose all material facts fairly and truly or states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power to refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits.”
The bench continued “if court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. There is a compelling need to take a serious view in such matters to ensure purity and grace in the administration of justice.”
Reverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, it said “the finding recorded in the review petition, impugned in this appeal, is not sustainable, due to conduct of the respondent herein.”
However, the judges simultaneously took a lenient position on the situation of the lady. They recorded “the respondent-review writ petitioner has been following her case since 2009. As submitted by her counsel, due to her humble and poor background, the appellants herein may consider her to be engaged against some post in the J&K Police.”
