HC dismisses plea against 33 KV Line in Palhalan; imposes Rs 20,000 fine for hiding facts
19/11/2025
SRINAGAR, Nov 18: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition filed by two Palhalan residents against the construction of a 33 KV transmission line in their locality, holding that the petitioners had approached the Court with "unclean hands" by suppressing the fact that they were already pursuing the same dispute before a civil court. The Court also imposed a cost of Rs 20,000 on them for misleading the judicial process.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, delivering the oral judgment in WP(C) No. 2760/2025, said the writ petition was "false, frivolous and misconceived" as the petitioners had deliberately withheld information about a pending civil suit where identical relief had already been sought.
Petitioners Fayaz Ahmad Ganie and Abdul Majid Dar had challenged the laying of a 33 KV line in Palhalan, alleging it posed a serious risk to life and property by passing dangerously close to residential houses. They sought quashing of an authorization letter issued by the Power Development Department (PDD) and demanded rerouting of the line along the national highway, where an 11 KV line already exists.
Government Advocate Faheem Nisar Shah informed the Court that the petitioners had earlier filed a civil suit before the Sub Judge, Pattan, seeking an injunction against the same HT line. Orders passed in December 2023 and February 2024, including a "status quo" direction limited to certain officials, were still operative. The petitioners, however, failed to disclose these proceedings in their writ petition.
The Government argued that the petitioners were obstructing a public utility project, and the ongoing work was merely an augmentation of an existing 11 KV MES line, in place for over five decades.
The Court held that the petitioners had engaged in "fraudulent misrepresentation" by selectively annexing documents but not pleading the existence of the civil suit in the petition. "This omission is not an oversight but a deliberate attempt to withhold material information," the Court observed, adding that such conduct amounted to abuse of the court's process.
Reiterating that a litigant invoking Article 226 must come with clean hands, the Court cited several Supreme Court rulings emphasising that suppression of material facts is equivalent to playing fraud on the court.
Dismissing the petition in limine, the High Court directed the petitioners to deposit ?20,000 in the Advocate's Welfare Fund within two weeks, and listed the matter thereafter for reporting compliance.
The judgment serves as a reminder that individuals approaching constitutional courts must disclose all relevant facts, especially parallel proceedings, failing which they risk dismissal and penalties.
Share This Story |
|
Comment On This Story |
|
|
|
|