Jammu and Kashmir High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Over Suppression of Facts, Imposes Rs. 50,000 Penalty

High Court rules against petitioners for concealing ongoing civil suit, emphasizing the precedence of civil court jurisdiction over revenue authorities.

In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court at Srinagar dismissed a writ petition filed by Farooq Ahmad Shiekh and others against the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and others, citing deliberate suppression of material facts. The court, presided over by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioners for approaching the court with unclean hands and attempting to misuse its extraordinary jurisdiction.

The case revolved around an alleged encroachment on a public pathway constructed by the Rural Development Department. The petitioners claimed the land in question was part of their proprietary land, but failed to disclose an ongoing civil suit and an existing interim restraint order on the same subject matter from the Civil Court in Kupwara.

Justice Nargal emphasized the principle against parallel proceedings, highlighting that once a civil court has taken cognizance of a dispute, parties cannot simultaneously pursue the same issue before revenue authorities or other forums. The court ruled that the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, and Financial Commissioner, which were challenged by the petitioners, could not be sustained as they conflicted with the civil court proceedings.

In his judgment, Justice Nargal underscored the importance of parties making full and fair disclosure of all material facts when invoking the court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court cited the Supreme Court's stance in "Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India" and other precedents, reiterating that suppression of facts amounts to an abuse of the legal process.

The court directed the petitioners to pay the imposed cost within two weeks and ordered that it be deposited in the Advocates' Welfare Fund. The court also instructed the civil court to proceed with the matter on its merits, unaffected by the High Court's observations.

This ruling serves as a stern reminder of the sanctity of judicial processes and the consequences of attempting to manipulate them through deceitful means.

Bottom Line:

Suppression of material facts in a writ petition amounts to abuse of process of law, disentitling the petitioner from invoking discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Civil Procedure Code - Order 39, Rule 4

Farooq Ahmad Shiekh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue)/ Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, (Jammu And Kashmir)(Srinagar) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2820967