No relief for those who conceal facts, rules HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it unequivocally clear that litigants who conceal facts or file false affidavits cannot seek protection under the principles of equity and justice. In a significant ruling, the court emphasised that such individuals must face strict consequences, even if they claim relief based on parity.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I Mehta ruled that anyone who deliberately withholds information to secure a favourable court order does not deserve any leniency. “We find that if someone has attempted to withhold the information from the court and in this manner filed a false affidavit, he/she would not be eligible to get an order on the anvil of equity and justice. Such person has to be dealt with strictly by this court even if he has some right created on the basis of parity, the same are not required to be extended to him as he is a person who deliberately conceals information from the court with a view to obtain order,” the Bench observed.
The court further clarified that departmental action could be initiated if concealment occurs during an individual’s service period. “We also notice that if any concealment is done during the period of service, departmental proceedings can also be initiated against the individual concerned,” the court added.
The Bench also highlighted that a review of any court order is justified if a crucial fact, previously overlooked or concealed, comes to light. The judges underlined that proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are grounded in both equity and law, making it imperative for the court to maintain transparency and fairness.
The ruling came while hearing a case involving a petitioner who initially lost a civil suit but later reached a compromise before the District Judge, Rohtak, in 2002. The compromise assured that his case would be considered for regularisation, taking into account his seniority and future vacancies. However, the petitioner was found guilty of suppressing vital information from the high court during subsequent proceedings.
Terming the petitioner a “smart litigant” who intentionally misled the court, the Bench directed departmental action against him. “He is working on a post and is amenable to departmental proceedings. Considering his misconduct, we direct the appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings against the writ petitioner who has filed apparently a false affidavit concealing facts from the court. Compliance report of the same be furnished before this court,” the Bench ordered.
