THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 6773 of 2026

The Committee of Management and another
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State of U.P. and another
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Om Prakash Ojha, Rabindra Nath Ojha
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : C.S.C., Yogesh Kumar Saxena

Court No. - 37
                 HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. Heard Shri O.P. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Standing Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and Shri Yogesh Kumar
Saxena, learned counsel in support of Civil Misc. Impleadment
Application No.2 of 2026 and Civil Misc. Dismissal Application No.3 of
2026. The said applications are already on record.

2. The said applications have been filed by one Anand Kumar Singh as
Manager of the Committee of Management of the Society bringing on
record proceedings in the previous rounds of litigation and orders passed
therein.

3. For the reasons stated in the affidavit supporting applications and
enclosures thereto, the impleadment application is allowed.

4. Mr. Anand Kumar Singh is deemed to be impleaded as respondent
No.3 in the writ petition.

5. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of Committee of
Management of the Samiti through one Shioraj Singh as Manager with a
prayer to issue a direction to the respondents to decide the representation
of the petitioners for registering the list of office bearers of Committee of
Management of the Society for the year 2025-26. Second prayer is for
issuing a direction to decide representation dated 01.12.2025 wherein the
only prayer was made to renew certificate of registration of Society.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has himself drawn attention of the
Court towards 'Annexure No.8' to the writ petition whereby the Assistant
Registrar has already issued a renewal certificate dated 15.12.2025.
                                                        WRIC No. 6773 of 2026
                               2

7. Confronted with the said situation, learned counsel for the petitioners
has not pressed the second prayer.

8. The only relief, therefore, remains to be considered is the prayer as
regards registration of list of office bearers.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, time and again, the
petitioners' Committee of Management has been elected and there being
no dispute of Committee of Management, the Assistant Registrar should
be directed to register the list of the office bearers for the year 2025-26.

10. Shri Y.K. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for newly impleaded
party has drawn attention of the Court towards paragraphs 18 and 21 of
the writ petition which read as under:-
      "18. That there is no dispute regarding Committee of Management
      of Society and the Society is not time barred.
      21. That there is no rival claim of the Committee of Management
      pending before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits
      Kanpur, Region Kanpur but the respondents has not been
      registered the list of the office bearer of the Committee of
      Management for the year 2024-2025."
11. It is submitted that the petitioners have come up with a case that there
are no rival claims or disputes qua the Committee of Management,
although various writ petitions were filed in between the parties being
Writ C Nos.3085 of 2020, 34269 of 2021, 7794 of 2021 and Writ C
No.31109 of 2022. It is further submitted that a counter affidavit has been
filed by the present petitioners being respondents in Writ C No.31109 of
2022, copy whereof has also been annexed along with impleadment
application.

12. Submission is that filing of the writ petition is based upon gross
concealment of material facts and proceedings so as to obtain favourable
order from this Court.

13. Confronted with the said situation, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that two of the writ petitions being Writ C No.3085 of 2020 and
34269 of 2021 have already been dismissed as infructuous. The said
orders have been placed before this Court. However, there is no dispute
regarding filing of various writ petitions as well as pendency of at least
one petition wherein interim order is operative and the petitioners being
respondents therein are contesting the same by filing counter affidavit.
                                                         WRIC No. 6773 of 2026
                                3

14. In view of the aforesaid proceedings, assertions made in paragraphs
18 and 21 of the writ petition become patently false. Further, concealment
of the aforesaid proceedings and their result, is sufficient not only to
decline grant of any relief but also to observe that petitioners have made
an attempt to mislead the Court by making false statements on affidavit.

15. In Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 21, the
Apex Court has observed that to enable the courts to ward off unjustified
interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like
perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately
dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any court to
administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who
approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. People would
have faith in courts when they would find that "truth alone triumphs" is an
achievable aim there.

16. In Buddhi Kota Subbarai (Dr.) Vs. K. Parasaran, (1996) 5 SCC
530, the Supreme Court has held that no litigant has a right to unlimited
drought on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs
settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be
misused as a licence to file misconceived or frivolous petitions.

17. In Arunima Baruah Vs. Union of India (2007) 6 SCC 120, Supreme
Court held that it is trite law that to enable the Court to refuse to exercise
its discretionary jurisdiction when material facts are suppressed. It was
further held that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the
court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands.

18. In Prestige Lights Limited Vs. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC
449, the Supreme Court observed that it is well settled that a prerogative
remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, a
Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is
invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or
suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the
Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter.
The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous
litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis
of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct
facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are
distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become
                                                                WRIC No. 6773 of 2026
                                            4

impossible.

19. In K.D Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others,
(2008) 12 SCC 481, Supreme Court held that no litigant can play "hide
and seek" with the courts or adopt "pick and choose" and one should
come with candid facts and clean breast. Suppression or concealment of
material facts is forbidden to a litigant or even as a technique of advocacy.
In such cases the Court is duty bound to discharge rule nisi and such
applicant is required to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing
the process of the court.

20. Supreme Court in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others, (2010) 2 SCC 114 came down heavily on unscrupulous litigants
and after noticing the progressive decline in the values of life, it observed
as follows:

           “For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of
           life i.e. “Satya” (truth) and “ahimsa” (non-violence). Mahavir,
           Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to
           ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth 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.”


21. In Amar Singh Vs. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 69, Supreme Court
held that Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who,
with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings
without full disclosure of facts. Courts held that such litigants who come
                                                          WRIC No. 6773 of 2026
                                5

with "unclean hands", are not entitled to be heard on the merits of their
case.

22. In Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (10) SCALE
330, The Supreme Court held that the entire journey of a Judge is to
discern the truth from the pleadings, documents and arguments of the
parties, as truth is the basis of the Justice Delivery System..............With
the passage of time, it has been realized that people used to feel proud to
tell the truth in the Courts, irrespective of the consequences but that
practice no longer proves true, in all cases. The Apex Court further
observed that the Court does not sit simply as an umpire in a contest
between two parties and declare at the end of the combat as to who has
won and who has lost but it has a legal duty of its own, independent of
parties, to take active role in the proceedings and reach at the truth, which
is the foundation of administration of justice. Therefore, the truth should
become the ideal to inspire the courts to pursue. This can be achieved by
statutorily mandating the Courts to become active seekers of truth...... It is
the bounden duty of the Court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt
to surpass the legal process must be effectively curbed and the Court must
ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorized or unjust gain to anyone as
a result of abuse of the process of the Court. One way to curb this
tendency is to impose realistic or punitive costs.

23. In Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and others (1995) 3
SCC 757, it has been observed that filing of a false affidavit was the basis
for initiation of action in contempt jurisdiction and the concerned persons
were punished.

24. The soul derived from the judgments referred to above speaks 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. Truth constituted an
integral part of the justice-delivery system in the pre-Independence era,
however, 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 in taking shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and
suppression of facts in the court proceedings.

25. 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
                                                                                          WRIC No. 6773 of 2026
                                                                  6

                                    material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the
                                    court. The maxim supressio veri, expression falsi, i.e. suppression of
                                    truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted in such
                                    cases including the present one.

                                    26. In view of the above, this writ petition, being gross and patent abuse
                                    of the process of law, is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

                                    27. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed by imposing cost of
                                    Rs.50,000/- upon the petitioners.

                                    28. The cost shall be deposited by the petitioners before the Registrar
                                    General of this Court within a period of one month from today, failing
                                    which, the Registrar (Compliance), High Court, Allahabad shall ensure
                                    that this order is sent to the Collector, Kanpur Dehat to initiate and
                                    conclude the proceedings of recovery of the amount of cost as arrears of
                                    land revenue.


                                                                                       (Kshitij Shailendra,J.)
                                    March 18, 2026
                                    Jyotsana




Digitally signed by :-
JYOTSANA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad