A^-^ mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION CS) No. 7128 of2006 Pawan Kumar VERSUS RESPONDENTS Hemant Lal & Others. .•'';;.;'4 Post for pronouncement ofjudgment and order on .2-^03.2009. SA'- Sarish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 7128 of2006 PETITIONER : Pawan Kumar, son of Mahettar Verma, aged about 35 years, Resident of village Bhothi, Tahsil IQiairagarh, Post Bijatala, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Hemant Lal, son ofBalram Verma, resident ofvillage Bhothi, Gram Panchayat Bhothi, Tahsil Khairagarh, Disto-ict Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 2. Gram Panchayat Bhothi, Village Bhothi, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgrah) 4. Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri H.B.AgrawaI, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rmki Tamrakar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for fhe respondent No. 1 Shri Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents 3 and 4. •s - (Passed on .^..^day ofMarch, 2009) 1. By tfais petition, the petitioner impugns Annexure P/6 without making it a part of the record and further, there is no mention in the pleadings with regard to Annexure P/6. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi on 27.6.2005 (Annexure P/l) vide resolution ofGram Sabha, Bhothi, Development Block Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon. Thereafter, the petitioner was declared as Panchayat Secretary of the said Gram Panchayat vide order dated 27.10.2005 (Annexure P/2) under the provisions ofsection -VI 69(1) of the CUhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 1993') by the Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare, Rajnandgaon. 3. According to leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner has taken charge ofsecretary on 30.12.2005 (Annexure P/3). The appointment of petitioner was challenged by fhe respondent No. 1 before the Sub Divisional Officer (for short 'the SDO'), IQiairagarh, District Rajnandgaon. In revision, the SDO has no power to entertain a revision under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules, 1995'). Thus, the order passed by the SDO is bad and is beyond jurisdiction ofthe Court. The SDO, vide its order dated 17.7.2006 (Annexure B) quashed the resolution of the Gram Pmchayat and cancelled the appointment of the petitioner holding that in the selection process for appointinent of Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat Bhothi, provisions of law has not been followed and the application ofthe competent persons have been rejected.improperly. Thus, the resolution dated 01.04.2005 was quashed and it was directed to hold fresh selection for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi in accordance with law. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order ofthe SDO before the Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon i.e. the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4, by order dated 30.11.2006 (Annexure P/5) dismissed the appeal holding that the order passed by the SDO was in accordance with law and there was no ground available to interfere with the order dated 17.7.2006 (Annexure B) passed by the SDO. 4. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On pemsal of the papers, it is found that the pleadings are incomplete and not supported by documents. Annexure P/6, which is sought to be quashed in this petition, is not a part ofthe record as no date ofAnnexure P/6 is either mentioned in the pleadings or in the prayer. 5. In regard to contention ofthe petitioner that the revision under provisions of the Rules, 1995, is not maintainable before the SDO, is just and proper. However the revision filed before the SDO was ta-eated as an appeal in para 4(3) ofthe order dated 17.7.2006. Thus, the contention ofthe leamed counsel for the petitioner that tfie order dated 17.7.2006 passed by the SDO was beyondjurisdiction, is not sustainable. The case on merit on the basis offacts available does not need any interference as the selection was found to be not in accordance with law by the SDO as well as by the Additional Collector in his order dated 30.11.2006 (Annexure P/5); The petitioner has not produced any document including resolution to take any contrary view as found by the SDO and affirmed by the Additional Collector. The petition is devoid of merit also. 6. The Supreme Court, in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India , while dealing with the concept of want/suppression of material facts, observed as imder: "35. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, 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 fhe court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the ' (2007) 8 SCC 449 matter. The mle has been evolved in larger public mterest to deter unscmpulous litigants &om abusing the process of coiirt by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of tme, complete and con-ect facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning ofthe writ courts would become impossible." 7. The above ratio was followed with approval in General Manager, Haryana Roadways V. Jai Bhagwan and Another , wherein the Supreme Court observed as under: j "13. Suppression of material fact is viewed seriously by the superior courts exercising their discretionary jurisdiction. In S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar this Court on suppression offact held: (SCC p. 173, para 13) "73. As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This mle has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case." The said observation was quoted with approval by one of us in Arunima Baruah v. Union of India, wherein the question which was raised was: How far and to what extent suppression of fact by way of hon-disclosure would affect a person's right of access to justice? The Court notices that so as to enable it to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction, the suppression must be of material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and cu'cumstances ofeach case. 14. Recently, in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI this Court held: (SCCp. 461,para33) "33. ... The High Court is exercising discretionary and exta-aordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, ofutmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facfs have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without enterine into merits ofthe matter." (2008) 4 SCC 127 8. In the instant case, despite several opportunities grmted to the petitioner to make proper pleadings in the petition, the petitioner has failed to do so. The resolution ofthe Gram Pmchayat md other relevant documents have also not been filed in this petition. Thus, for want ofmaterial facts, the petition cannot be considered and deeided. 9. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case wherein there is lack of adequate materials as well as proper mentioning of documents appended to the petition, no writ/direction can be issued. Thus, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is dismissed.No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agniho" Judge Amit