Introduction:
The Rajasthan High Court, in a recent judgment delivered by Justice Sanjeet Purohit, came down heavily on two tenants who had approached the Court in an attempt to mislead it by concealing material facts and abusing the judicial process. The case titled Heera Lal Saini & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported as 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 369, involved two shop tenants who had originally been allotted shops by the State on rent since 2001–02. The petitioners were directed by the authorities in 2024 to vacate their rented shops for repairs and maintenance, with an assurance that the premises would be returned to them after renovation. However, after the completion of repair work, the State instead issued a notice announcing an auction of the same shops. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a writ petition before the High Court, contending that their rights as tenants had been violated and alleging that the State had acted arbitrarily and unfairly by auctioning the shops that were once lawfully occupied by them. Initially, the Court granted an interim stay on the auction proceedings, appearing to accept the tenants’ grievance. However, during subsequent hearings, the State brought to the Court’s attention crucial facts that the petitioners had deliberately concealed.
Arguments Presented by the Petitioners:
The petitioners, represented through counsel, argued that they were long-standing tenants of the Gram Panchayat’s shops and that the State’s action to auction the same properties after promising to return them post-repair amounted to a breach of legitimate expectation. They claimed that the notice requiring them to vacate was only for temporary repairs, and they had complied with it in good faith. After the repairs, the decision to auction the shops instead of restoring their possession was arbitrary and discriminatory, they contended. The petitioners further argued that their earlier civil suit, which had challenged the eviction notice, was entirely separate from the current writ petition, which pertained specifically to the auction notice. Therefore, according to them, the pendency or dismissal of the earlier suit should have no bearing on the writ petition. Moreover, the petitioners attempted to distance themselves from an earlier round of auction proceedings by asserting that it was their brother, and not they themselves, who had participated and failed to deposit the bid amount. The petitioners emphasized that they had not taken part in any such auction and, therefore, could not be penalized for someone else’s default. Their plea before the High Court was that the auction process be stayed or annulled, and their possession of the shops restored as per the earlier assurance.
Arguments Presented by the Respondents (State Authorities):
The State, represented by its counsel, countered the petitioners’ claims and produced documentary evidence revealing that the petitioners had deliberately concealed material information from the Court. The State submitted that when the notice to vacate the shops was first issued for repair purposes, the petitioners had not cooperated. The authorities were compelled to seek police assistance to have the premises vacated. Further, the petitioners had already filed a civil suit challenging the eviction notice, which was dismissed by the civil court, and their appeal was also rejected. Despite these facts, the petitioners once again approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, suppressing the existence of the earlier litigation. This, the State argued, was a clear instance of “forum shopping” and abuse of the judicial process. Additionally, the State disclosed that in a previous auction round conducted for the same shops, the brother of the petitioners had participated and won the bid but failed to deposit the requisite bid amount. This led to the cancellation of the auction, causing a substantial financial loss to the Gram Panchayat. The State contended that the petitioners and their brother were acting in collusion to frustrate the auction process and prevent the shops from being leased to other eligible bidders. Their conduct, according to the State, was not only dishonest but also indicative of mala fide intent. It was emphasized that the petitioners had no right to reoccupy the premises after the lawful auction notice was issued and that their petition was not maintainable. The State therefore requested the Court to vacate the interim stay, dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs, and allow the fresh auction to proceed.
Court’s Observations and Findings:
Justice Sanjeet Purohit, after hearing both sides and examining the case records, observed that the petitioners’ conduct was deeply questionable and amounted to misleading the Court. The Court noted that the petitioners had intentionally suppressed the fact that they had earlier filed a civil suit against the same eviction notice and had lost both the suit and the appeal. The High Court held that such concealment of material facts was a serious violation of the fundamental principle that a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands. The Court underscored that when a person conceals crucial facts, any relief granted on such suppression is liable to be vacated, as the foundation of writ jurisdiction is the disclosure of true, complete, and accurate information.
Justice Purohit also examined the petitioners’ argument that the first auction was attended by their brother and not by them. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the petitioners and their brother were clearly acting in collusion. The sequence of events demonstrated that the petitioners had voluntarily participated, directly or indirectly, in the earlier auction process but then failed to deposit the bid amount, causing financial loss to the Gram Panchayat. Once they had willingly participated in the auction, the Court held, they were estopped from challenging the subsequent round of auction proceedings. The principle of estoppel, waiver, and acquiescence barred the petitioners from contesting the very process they had earlier accepted.
The Court further observed that the petitioners’ actions had caused significant financial loss to the Gram Panchayat, as the failure to complete the earlier auction delayed the re-letting of the shops, depriving the Panchayat of legitimate rental income. The Court strongly deprecated the conduct of the petitioners, remarking that their actions reflected an attempt to manipulate the legal process and misuse the judicial machinery. Justice Purohit stated: “This Court strongly deprecates and condemns such dubious and unscrupulous practices adopted by the petitioners. By engaging in conduct that amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law, the petitioners have not only caused financial loss to the Gram Panchayat but have also sought to misuse the judicial machinery.”
The High Court emphasized that the principle of equity demands that litigants who approach the constitutional courts must do so with utmost honesty and transparency. The entire writ jurisdiction is discretionary, and it cannot be invoked by those who attempt to play fraud upon the Court or suppress facts for personal gain. The Court made it clear that if the petitioners were allowed to succeed, it would set a dangerous precedent where individuals could manipulate the process of law, frustrate legitimate auctions, and deprive public authorities of due revenue.
The Court also elaborated that the doctrine of “clean hands” is not a mere technical rule but an essential principle of justice. It ensures that judicial time is not wasted on frivolous or dishonest claims. The petitioners, by filing multiple cases in different forums for the same sequence of actions — eviction and auction — had shown a clear intent to delay the process and prevent the lawful utilization of public property. The Court categorically held that such misuse of the judicial process must be curbed with a strong hand to maintain the sanctity of the justice system.
After detailed consideration of all arguments, Justice Purohit held that the petitioners’ writ petition was devoid of merit. The Court observed that the entire case was built on concealment, misrepresentation, and bad faith. It ruled that the challenge to the auction notice was not maintainable, especially when the petitioners themselves or their family members had participated in the earlier auction and frustrated it. It also held that the petitioners could not take advantage of their own wrong and then seek relief from the Court.
Consequently, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition and imposed a total cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioners for misleading the Court and wasting judicial time. The Court directed that this cost be deposited with the concerned Gram Panchayat to compensate for the loss suffered due to the petitioners’ conduct. The decision serves as a strong reminder that the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked by those who attempt to play fraud or suppress material facts. The judgment thus reinforces the need for honesty, transparency, and good faith in judicial proceedings.