The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that litigants approaching constitutional courts must come with clean hands. A writ petition was dismissed not on the merits of the dispute, but because the petitioner deliberately concealed a prior final order under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, undermining judicial trust and inviting the doctrine of unclean hands.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Vijay Sahu, sought writ relief to prevent the demolition of his residential structure in Village Dasaipur, Maihar, alleging unauthorized action by state authorities under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC). He claimed no order had been passed since July 21, 2025, and that his representation dated that date remained unaddressed.
Procedural History
- July 21, 2025: Petitioner submitted a representation to the Tehsildar objecting to proposed action.
- August 21, 2025: Tehsildar passed a final order under Section 248 MPLRC after notice, appearance, and reply from the petitioner.
- January 2026: Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1906 of 2026, omitting any reference to the August 2025 order.
- January 22, 2026: Court discovered the suppressed order during verification ordered on the State’s instruction.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (i) mandamus to decide his representation; (ii) restraint against demolition; (iii) certiorari to quash the notice; and (iv) any other relief deemed fit.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a writ petitioner who suppresses a material, final order passed in the same proceeding is entitled to any relief under Articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution, even if the underlying claim may appear meritorious.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that no final order had been passed before the petition was filed, and that the August 2025 order was either non-existent or irrelevant. The representation dated July 21, 2025, remained pending, and the petitioner was entitled to judicial intervention to prevent illegal dispossession.
For the Respondent/State
The State counsel demonstrated that the August 21, 2025 order was a final adjudication under Section 248 MPLRC, issued after due process. The petitioner had participated in the proceedings, received notice, and filed a reply. The omission of this order in the writ petition constituted deliberate suppression.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the doctrine of clean hands, rooted in equity and judicial integrity, and held that constitutional remedies are not available to those who mislead the court. It relied on Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society (2013) to emphasize that litigants cannot selectively disclose facts. The Court observed:
"It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and leave the decision-making to the court."
The Court further cited Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India (2010) and K. Jayaram v. BDA (2022) to underscore the mandatory duty to disclose all pending or concluded proceedings concerning the subject matter. The petitioner’s silence on the August 2025 order was not an oversight but a calculated omission to gain an unfair advantage. The Court rejected the notion that procedural irregularities in the underlying order could justify the suppression, noting that such challenges must be raised in the original forum, not through deceptive litigation.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that a litigant who suppresses material facts cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, regardless of the merits of the underlying claim. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 10,000 as costs with the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Suppression of Final Orders Is Fatal to Writ Relief
- Practitioners must conduct a complete search of all prior proceedings involving the same property or subject matter before filing a writ.
- Omitting a final order - even if unfavorable - is not a technical flaw but a ground for outright dismissal.
- Courts will not look behind pleadings to unearth suppressed facts; the burden lies entirely on the petitioner.
Costs Are Not Discretionary But Mandatory in Cases of Abuse
- The imposition of Rs. 10,000 as costs signals a shift toward punitive deterrence against tactical litigation.
- Courts may now routinely impose costs in cases of suppression, even where the petition is dismissed on procedural grounds.
- Practitioners must advise clients that filing incomplete or misleading petitions risks personal financial liability.
Constitutional Remedies Are Not a Substitute for Proper Procedure
- Writ petitions cannot be used to bypass statutory appellate mechanisms.
- If a party has participated in and lost before a statutory authority, the remedy lies in appeal or revision - not in re-litigating the same issue before the High Court with selective disclosure.
- This judgment reinforces that constitutional jurisdiction is a privilege, not a right, when procedural honesty is absent.
