The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a recent order, has underscored the critical importance of disclosing material facts in writ proceedings. The Court allowed a review petition and restored a writ petition after finding that the petitioner had suppressed key facts regarding the rejection of a compassionate appointment application, which were not placed before the Court during the initial hearing. This judgment reinforces the principle that non-disclosure of material facts can vitiate judicial orders and lead to their recall, even at the review stage.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Vipin Chourasiya seeking compassionate appointment following the death of his father, the family’s breadwinner. The petitioner alleged that his application for compassionate appointment was unjustly rejected by the authorities. The Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC), a respondent in the writ petition, contended that the petitioner had suppressed material facts, including the rejection of his earlier application on grounds of lack of requisite qualifications.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- 2025: Writ petition (WPS No. 2480 of 2025) filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court.
- 11.04.2025: The High Court disposed of the writ petition at the motion stage, directing the Chief Secretary of the State Government to reconsider the petitioner’s grievance afresh.
- 2025: CIDC filed a review petition (REVP No. 312 of 2025) seeking recall of the order dated 11.04.2025, alleging suppression of material facts by the writ petitioner.
The Parties' Positions
- Petitioner (CIDC): Argued that the writ petitioner had suppressed the fact that his earlier application for compassionate appointment was rejected due to lack of qualifications. CIDC further contended that it could not place these facts before the Court during the initial hearing due to lack of instructions.
- Respondent (Vipin Chourasiya): Denied suppressing any material facts and claimed that the rejection of his earlier application was never communicated to him.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether the suppression of material facts in a writ petition justifies the recall of an order under review jurisdiction, thereby restoring the petition for fresh consideration.
Arguments Presented
For the Review Petitioner (CIDC)
The counsel for CIDC argued that:
- The writ petitioner had deliberately suppressed the rejection of his earlier application for compassionate appointment.
- The non-disclosure of material facts vitiated the Court’s order dated 11.04.2025, as the Court was not apprised of the complete factual matrix.
- The review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) could be invoked to correct such errors, even if they arose from lack of proper instructions to counsel.
For the Respondent (Vipin Chourasiya)
The counsel for the writ petitioner contended that:
- There was no suppression of facts, as the rejection of the earlier application was never communicated to the petitioner.
- The review petition was an attempt to re-agitate the matter on merits, which is not permissible under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of review jurisdiction and the duty of parties to disclose material facts in writ proceedings. The Court observed:
"From bare perusal, it is manifest that though while hearing the writ petition under review the CIDC was properly represented on advance copy, however, due to lack of proper instructions he could not place anything. However, the writ petition was disposed off directing the Chief Secretary to the State Government to look into the grievance and claim of the writ petitioner afresh."
The Court noted that the review petitioner had subsequently placed on record several facts, orders, and circulars regarding the compassionate appointment policy, which were not brought to the Court’s notice during the initial hearing. The Court held that the non-disclosure of these material facts justified the recall of the order under review jurisdiction. The Court relied on the principle that judicial orders passed without complete factual disclosure are liable to be set aside, as they may lead to miscarriage of justice.
The Court distinguished the present case from instances where review petitions are filed merely to re-agitate the merits of the dispute. Here, the suppression of material facts was a jurisdictional error that warranted the exercise of review powers.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the review petition and recalled the order dated 11.04.2025 passed in WPS No. 2480 of 2025. The writ petition was restored to its original number for fresh consideration. The Court held that suppression of material facts in writ proceedings is a valid ground for recalling orders under review jurisdiction, even if the non-disclosure arose from lack of instructions to counsel.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Duty to Disclose Material Facts
The judgment reinforces the obligation of parties to disclose all material facts in writ proceedings. Practitioners must ensure that:
- All relevant documents, including orders and circulars, are placed before the Court at the earliest stage.
- Counsel is fully instructed to avoid situations where lack of instructions leads to non-disclosure of critical facts.
- Review petitions can be a potent remedy where material facts were suppressed or not brought to the Court’s notice during the initial hearing.
Scope of Review Jurisdiction
The Court clarified that review jurisdiction is not limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. It extends to cases where:
- Material facts were suppressed or misrepresented.
- The Court’s order was passed without complete factual disclosure.
- The non-disclosure vitiates the judicial order and may lead to miscarriage of justice.
Practical Implications for Compassionate Appointments
For cases involving compassionate appointments, this judgment underscores:
- The importance of documentary evidence to prove communication of rejection orders.
- The need for transparent disclosure of all prior applications and their outcomes.
- The burden on authorities to ensure that rejections are duly communicated to applicants to avoid disputes over suppression of facts.
