Gujarat High Court asks lawyer to explain suppression of fact

The Gujarat High Court recently sought an explanation from a lawyer for suppressing the fact about dismissal of his client's plea by a Division Bench in relation to a land dispute case [Panchmahal Shikshan Pracharak Mandal & Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors].

The petitioners, Panchmahal Shikshan Pracharak Mandal and its President Bhupesh Sharadkumar Shah, were pressing a plea before a single-judge in relation to the State's decision to resume/reoccupy a piece of land allotted to the trust.

The petition was being pursued despite a Division Bench having already upheld the State decision.

Justice Nikhil S Kariel on October 24 asked advocate BM Mangukiya to file an affidavit explaining why the Division Bench's order dated August 21 was not brought to the Court's notice when it intervened in the present case on October 11.

"Let such affidavit be filed on or before 29.10.2024. List this matter on 30.10.2024," the Court ordered.

Meanwhile, the Court accepted the apology given by petitioner (Shah) after Mangukiya said the entire responsibility of the ‘miscommunication’ would rest with him only.

"This will not go unnoticed. I have the highest respect for learned advocates but then learned advocates should also behave as officers of court," Justice Kariel observed during the hearing, while seeking affidavit from Mangukiya.

While intervening in the petitioner's case, the single-judge had earlier directed the District Collector of Panchmahal to remain present before it.

The officer had been summoned after the Court had noted that the petitioner's application related to the issue at hand was not decided in accordance with an earlier court order.

However, the State on October 17 informed the single-judge about the Division Bench's order. It was also found that an appeal against that decision had already been moved before the Supreme Court.

Following this, the single-judge said the following about his earlier orde.

"To this Court, it would appear that while this Court may or may not have taken the above decision on 11.10.2024, but, if order dated 21.08.2024 had been brought to the notice of this Court on 11.10.2024, then possibly the entire controversy as noted in the order could have been viewed by this Court from a different perspective."

It added that the present petition challenging the State's decision had become infructuous upon the Division Bench's ruling.

Mangukiya had earlier claimed before the Court that he had not been informed about the Division Bench's ruling by the client. However, the Court found that the case before the Division Bench was filed through Mangukiya.

"Be that as it may, since it has been categorically stated by learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya that the petitioners had not informed the fact of order dated 21.08.2024 being passed and the fact of the petitioners having approached the Hon’ble Apex Court challenging the said order, to this Court, it would appear that the petitioners are prima facie guilty of gross suppression of the material fact and whereas, as noticed hereinabove, such suppression has resulted in probably unwarranted consequences," the Court had said in order dated October 17.

However, after the lawyer on October conceded that the fault was his, the Court ordered him to file an affidavit.

Advocates BM Mangukiya and Bela M Prajapati appeared for the petitioners.

Government Pleader GH Virk and Assistant Government Pleader Dharitri Pancholi represented the State.

[Read Orders]