Srinagar, Sept. 17, KDC: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition filed by a Srinagar-based electrical contractor and imposed costs of Rs 10,000 for concealing a pending parallel recovery suit against the power department. The court held that suppression of material facts amounts to an abuse of the process of law and disentitles a litigant from equitable relief.
Dismissing the petition, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal ruled that a party invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is under an obligation to approach the bench with clean hands, complete candour, and full disclosure of all relevant facts.
The petitioner, Nazir Ahmad Mir, proprietor of M/S Mir Electricals, Saraf Kadal, had approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Power Development Department (PDD) and the Kashmir Power Development Corporation Limited (KPDCL) to release admitted outstanding dues along with 12 percent interest.
However, during the proceedings, Additional Advocate General Shahbaz Sikandar, appearing on behalf of the administration and KPDCL, placed on record documents revealing that the contractor had already instituted a civil recovery suit for Rs 24,06,722 before the Additional District Judge, Bank Cases, designated as the Commercial Court in Srinagar.
The government submitted that the petitioner had sought substantially identical reliefs in the commercial suit, including a prayer for the attachment of the salary accounts of power department officials, and that the department had already submitted its written statement in those proceedings. The factum of the pending civil litigation was suppressed in the writ petition filed before the High Court.
Nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner when the matter was taken up for hearing.
Scrutinizing the record, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed that the suppression could not be treated as a mere omission or an insignificant lapse.
“It is well settled that a litigant invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court must come with clean hands, a clear mind and complete candour, and is under an obligation to disclose all material facts having a bearing upon the adjudication of the lis. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not a mere irregularity, particularly where the suppressed fact has a direct bearing upon the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. The duty of disclosure extends not only to facts which support the case of a party but equally to those which are adverse to its claim. An attempt to mislead the Court by withholding such material information strikes at the very root of the administration of justice and cannot be countenanced,” the Court said.
The court held that permitting parallel proceedings in respect of the same monetary claim would lead to multiplicity of litigation and allow an unscrupulous litigant to pursue identical remedies before two distinct forums simultaneously.
“A litigant who approaches the Court with suppression of material facts cannot claim equitable or discretionary relief as a matter of right. The writ jurisdiction cannot be permitted to be invoked as an instrument of abuse or to secure an unfair advantage by withholding material information from the Court. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it proper to decline the relief prayed by the petitioner by imposing costs so as to deprecate such conduct and to ensure that the process of the Court is not undermined by suppression of material facts,” the Bench said.
The High Court dismissed the petition with costs quantified at Rs 10,000, directing the contractor to deposit the amount with the Registry within a period of two weeks.
The Bench clarified that it has expressed no opinion on the actual merits of the claim pending adjudication before the Commercial Court, and directed the Registry to list the matter on October 5, 2026, for the limited purpose of verifying compliance regarding the deposit of costs. (KDC)
