The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking permission to operate the bank accounts of a degree college after finding that the petitioner had deliberately withheld material facts relating to a long-running dispute over the management of the society running the institution. A Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held that the petitioner had attempted to portray a deeply contested management dispute as a straightforward matter concerning the freezing of the college's bank accounts. Treating the conduct as a gross abuse of the process of law, the Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹1 lakh on the petitioners.
The petition was filed by Abida Banno, who claimed to be the Manager of Maseehunnisa Degree College, Khajohna, District Hardoi. Through the writ petition, she sought directions to the concerned banks to permit operation of the college's bank accounts and to recognize her as the authorized Manager and signatory for those accounts. She also sought protection against interference with the functioning of the institution and its bank accounts, except in accordance with law. The petition thus presented the issue as one concerning the ability of the college to operate its bank accounts and the petitioner's authority to operate them on behalf of the institution.
During the proceedings, the Court questioned the petitioner about the period for which the college's bank accounts had remained inoperative. Her counsel informed the Bench that the accounts had been frozen since 2020. The Court observed that the writ petition did not adequately explain the circumstances that had resulted in the accounts becoming inoperative. Instead, the petitioner primarily relied upon a representation dated May 15, 2026, through which she had sought restoration of access to the accounts. The Court found that the question of operating the accounts could not be examined independently because it was closely connected with the underlying dispute regarding the management of the society running the college.
The Bench noted that the society concerned was Kishan Shiksha Sansthan, Jaitnagar, which operates the college. The dispute regarding its management arose following the death of its Founder Manager on January 15, 2020. Thereafter, rival groups led by Abida Banno and her sister Uzma Faheem claimed control over the society. The competing claims resulted in a series of legal proceedings involving the society's renewal, elections, Executive Committee and the affiliation of the college. According to the Court, these developments were directly relevant to the petitioner's claim that she was entitled to operate the college's bank accounts as its Manager.
The Court considered several earlier proceedings relating to the society. One of the proceedings involved a writ petition filed by Abida Banno challenging the cancellation of the society's renewal. That challenge was dismissed on the ground that an alternative remedy was available. Her subsequent appeal was also dismissed, while another writ petition was later dismissed for want of prosecution. The Court further noted that the approval of the election of the rival Executive Committee had, prima facie, attained finality after a Division Bench allowed a special appeal on January 25, 2023. These developments were considered significant because they had a direct bearing on the competing claims concerning control and management of the society and, consequently, the authority to operate the college's bank accounts.
Against this background, the High Court found that the petitioner had failed to disclose important developments that had taken place between 2020 and 2023. The Bench observed that the petition attempted to present the dispute as a simple request for the de-freezing of bank accounts while concealing the much broader dispute concerning the management of the society. The Court described this approach as an attempt to camouflage a heavily contested management dispute into an alleged simple case concerning the operation of bank accounts. In the Court's view, the nature of the earlier litigation was material to the relief being sought in the present petition and therefore could not legitimately be withheld.
The Court also considered significant the manner in which the year 2020 was referred to in the writ petition. It observed that the reference to the accounts having been frozen since 2020 did not form part of the original typed writ petition and was subsequently inserted by hand in paragraph 11. This circumstance assumed importance because, when the Bench specifically questioned the petitioner about the period during which the accounts had remained frozen, the circumstances surrounding the freezing were still not properly disclosed. Instead, the petitioner continued to rely upon the representation made to the banks seeking restoration of access.
The High Court emphasized the obligation of a litigant approaching the Court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to disclose all relevant facts honestly and completely. The Bench observed that a litigant invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court is expected to approach it with clean hands, a clear mind and complete candour. According to the Court, the omission in the present case was not merely a procedural defect or an accidental failure to mention some information. The circumstances indicated that the petitioner was aware of the earlier proceedings and the management dispute but nevertheless failed to place the relevant facts before the Court.
The Bench further observed that the petitioner had herself been an active participant in the dispute concerning the management of the society. It was also significant that she had been represented as a respondent in an earlier writ petition in which an interim order had been passed. Consequently, the Court concluded that she was aware of the proceedings that had a direct bearing on her claim to operate the college's bank accounts. The earlier litigation was therefore not something outside her knowledge or unrelated to the present petition. The Court considered the withholding of these facts particularly serious because they concerned the very basis of the authority claimed by the petitioner.
The Bench reiterated that suppression or concealment of material facts before a court is not a mere irregularity. It observed that such conduct can amount to playing fraud upon the Court, particularly where the concealed facts are adverse to the litigant's case. The Court relied upon principles laid down in various judgments of the Supreme Court concerning the obligation of parties invoking writ jurisdiction to place true, complete and correct facts before the Court. A person seeking relief from the Court is required to disclose facts that may operate against the relief sought, and a litigant who approaches the Court without clean hands may be denied relief.
Applying these principles to the case, the Allahabad High Court concluded that the writ petition had been filed through deliberate suppression of material facts. The Court held that the petitioner had attempted to obtain a favourable order by concealing the background of the management dispute and the earlier judicial proceedings. The request concerning the bank accounts could not be treated separately from the questions concerning the management and control of the society and the college. The failure to disclose those circumstances, according to the Bench, fundamentally affected the manner in which the Court was being asked to exercise its writ jurisdiction.
The Court therefore characterized the petition as a gross abuse of the process of law. It found that the deliberate suppression of material facts warranted not merely dismissal of the writ petition but also the imposition of exemplary costs. The Bench took into account the seriousness of the conduct and the wastage of precious judicial time caused by the petition. It consequently imposed deterrent exemplary costs of ₹1 lakh upon the petitioners.
The Court directed that the amount of ₹1 lakh be deposited jointly or severally with the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority at Lucknow within one month. It further directed that in the event of non-payment, the amount would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. The order thus brought the proceedings to an end with dismissal of the petition and the financial consequence imposed because of the Court's finding regarding deliberate suppression of material facts.
The case, titled Masihunnisa Degree College Thru. Manager Abida Banno And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others, concerned the competing claims surrounding the management of the society running the college and the consequent authority to operate its bank accounts. The High Court's decision ultimately rested on its finding that the petitioner had failed to disclose material facts concerning the previous proceedings and management dispute. The petition was therefore dismissed as a gross abuse of the process of law, with exemplary costs of ₹1 lakh imposed in view of the deliberate suppression and the resulting wastage of judicial time.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.