Page 1 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

WP(C)(PIL) No.01 of 2026

1. Sri Ajay Debnath, S/O. Sri Jiban Debnath, R/O. Tepania, P.O. Tepania, P.S.

R.K. Pur, Dist.-Gomati, PIN-799114, Aged about-26 years.

2. Sri Rajib Ranjan Dey, S/O. Sri Sujit Kr. Dey, R.O. Tepania, P.O. Tepania,

P.S. R.K. Pur, Dist.-Gomati, PIN-799114, Aged about 29 years.

3. Sri Chandan Debnath, S/O. Sri Gokul Debnath, R/O. Tepania, P.O.

Tepania, P.S. R.K Pur, Dist.-Gomati, PIN-799114, Aged about-33 years.

4. Sri Sanjay Ranjan Dey, S/O. Sri Sujir Kr. Dey, R/O. Tepania, P.O. Tepania,

P.S. R.K Pur, Dist.-Gomati, PIN-799114, Aged about 29 years.

5. Sri Biplab Debnath, S/O. Sri Jiban Debnath, R/O. Tepania, P.O. Tepania,

P.S. R.K. Pur, Dist.-Gomati, PIN-799114, Aged about-49 years.

……… Petitioner(s).

V E R S U S

1. The State of Tripura, Represented by its Secretary, Public Works

Department (R & B), Government of Tripura, P.O. Secretariat, P.S. New

Capital Complex, District-West Tripura, Pin-799010.

2. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department(R & B), Public Works

Department (R & B), Government of Tripura, P.O.-Agartala, P.S. West

Agartala, District-West Tripura, Pin-799001.

3. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (R & B), Government

of Tripura, P.O. & P.S.- R.K. Pur, Udaipur Sub-Division, District-Gomati,

Pin-799120.

4. The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of

Tripura, P.O. Secretariat, P.S. New Capital Complex, District-West Tripura,

Pin-799010.

5. The Chief Medical Officer, Gomati District, Health and Family Welfare

Department, Government of Tripura, P.O. & P.S. R.K. Pur, District-Gomati,

Pin-799120.

6. The Medical Superintendent, Gomati District Hospital, P.O. & P.S. R.K.

Pur, Udaipur, District-Gomati, Pin-799120.

7. The Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Tripura, P.O. Secretariat, P.S.

New Capital Complex, District-West Tripura, Pin-799010.

8. The District Magistrate & Collector, Gomati District, P.O. & P.S. R.K.Pur,

District-Gomati, Pin-799120.

9. The Chief Secretary, State of Tripura.

………Respondent(s).

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Advocate,

Ms. Ishpa Chakma, Advocate,

Mr. Uday Das, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.

Page 2 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

CAV reserved on : 06.04.2026.

Judgment delivered on : 23.04.2026.

Whether fit for reporting : YES.

JUDGMENT & ORDER

(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)

1) Heard Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, counsel appearing for the petitioners

and Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the

State respondents.

2) This Public Interest Litigation was filed by 5 petitioners seeking a

direction to remove an alleged illegal encroachment as well as construction on

the public road situated at Plot No.1481, corresponding to Old Plot No.1860,

Khatian No.3/1 connecting Tepania to Barabhaiya, Udaipur Sub-Division,

Gomati District.

3) All the petitioners are residents of Tepania. Petitioner No.1, 3, 5

are businessmen and petitioner No.2 and 4 are teachers.

The case of the petitioners:

4) They contended in the Writ Petition that there is a pucca public

road in Old Plot No.1860, Khatian No.3/ of Moauja Radhakishorepur

Reserved Forest, tehsil-Dhwajanagar, revenue Circle-Udaipur, that it is public

road and recorded as a ‘road’ in the Jhatian No.3/1, and that the said road is

connecting Tepania to Barabhaiya villages and is meant for public use.

5) According to petitioners, this public road belongs to Government

of Tripura and the Public Works Department (R&B) of the State Government

is maintaining it.

Page 3 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB

6) They claimed that the said road has been existence for about 50

years, but in June 2025, the said road had been blocked by the officials of the

District Hospital of Gomati District by constructing iron made pillars and

installing tin sheets. The petitioners claim that they objected to this blockage

of the road. They contend free movement of public cannot be prevented on

such a public road.

7) After giving a representation dt.8.7.2025 and issuing a legal

notice dt.8.12.2025, which did not elicit any response from the respondents,

they filed the Writ Petition (PIL).

8) The petitioners impleaded the PWD Department officials

(respondent nos.1-3), the Health and Family Welfare Department officials

(respondent no.4), the Chief Medical Officer, Gomati District (respondent

no.5), the Medical Superintendent, Gomati District Hospital (respondent

no.6), the Secretary, Revenue Department (respondent no.7) and the District

Magistrate and Collector, Gomati District (respondent no.8).

The events after filing of the Writ Petition:

9) When this case was first listed on 10.2.2026, this Court issued

notice to all respondents and Sri Mangal Debbarma, Additional Government

Advocate, accepted notice for all respondents.

10) This Court directed listing of the case on 2.3.2026 and directed

that counter affidavits be filed by all respondents by the said date.

The stand of the respondents:

11) The Dy. Secretary of the PWD Department filed a counter

affidavit dt.27.2.2026 on behalf of all the respondents.

Page 4 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB

12) He admitted that there was an encroachment upon the subject

road passing through the premises of the Gomati District Hospital; and that the

Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Udaipur had addressed a communication

dt.17.2.2026 (Annexure-R/1) to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur Sub-

Division, Gomati requesting appropriate action for removal of the said illegal

encroachment in accordance with law; and that further action by the said

official is awaited.

13) No official of any other Department filed any Counter affidavit

separately.

The order dt.2.3.2026 passed by this Court:

14) Basing on this affidavit, this court passed an order on 2.3.2026

finding fault with the Respondent nos.4-6 for indulging in illegal

encroachment of the public road inconveniencing the residents by putting

pillars and fencing of tin sheets.

The respondent no.8 was directed to ensure that the needed steps

be taken to remove the said encroachment.

This Court also impleaded the Chief Secretary of the State of

Tripura suo motu as respondent no.9 in the Writ Petition and requested him to

ensure that the respondent nos.4-6 remove the said encroachment.

Direction was given to respondents 8 and 9 to file counter

affidavits in the matter.

The counter affidavit of the respondent no.8 (District Magistrate and

Collector, Gomati District:

15) On 24.3.2026, the respondent no.8 filed an affidavit stating that

demolition of the structures erected was carried out and a demolition report

dt.10.3.2026 was also filed by him.

Page 5 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB

The counter affidavit of the respondent no.9 ( the Chief Secretary, State

of Tripura):

16) But the Chief Secretary, State of Tripura (respondent no.9) filed

an affidavit on 3.4.2026 revealing certain startling facts not disclosed in the

previous counter affidavit dt.27.2.2026 of the Dy. Secretary, PWD (R&B)

Department and also that of the District Collector (respondent no.8) filed on

24.3.2026.

17) We shall now set out these facts below. According to the counter

affidavit of the Chief Secretary:

a) The subject road traverse through the District Hospital,

Gomati district premises connecting NH-08 with east Barabhaiya

which is at the backside of the District Hospital , Gomati;

b) The said road had been in existence much prior to the

establishment of the District Hospital, Gomati which became

operational in 2012.

c) Inside the Hospital premises, Maternity and Child Care

(MCH) Wing and District Early Intervention wing (DEIC) are

located on one side of the road and on the other side of the road is

the office of the Medical Superintendent along with residential

quarters adjacent to the road; A map was also filed as Annexure

R-2;

d) As the road passes through the Hospital premises, plying of

heavy vehicles like trucks and buses through the road was causing

Page 6 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB

severe inconvenience to the patients, mainly women and

infants/children admitted in the Maternity and Child Care Wing;

e) There were also several instances of breaking of grills and

glasses in Govt. Staff quarters by unknown elements along with

stealing of valuable items such as electric wires, Generator

Battery, diesel oil and parts of Air Conditioners raising concern

of safety and security of patients, Doctors and staff members

residing in the Hospital premises;

f) The Medical Superintendent of the District Hospital had

lodged FIRs on 2.4.2022 and 16.9.022 and a GD Entry was also

made on 2.6.2023 regarding thefts;

g) On 9.8.023,a person by name Biplab Debnath was also

caught red-handed while stealing electric wires from the Hospital

quarters; These documents were filed as Annexure R-3;

h) So the Medical Superintendent , District Hospital, Gomati

approached the Block Development Officer, Tepania R.D. Block

requesting for closure of the village road traversing through the

hospital premises through a letter dt.11.7.2024 and also

approached the Executive Engineer, Udaipur Division,

PWD(R&B) on 5.11.2025 for closure of the same road citing

safety and security of the hospital; these documents were filed as

Annexure R/4;

i) Considering the safety and security within the hospital

premises, a decision was taken in the Rogi Kalyan Samiti (RKS)

meeting dt.2.12.2025 chaired by the respondent no.8 and a

Page 7 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB

direction was given to the Executive director, Udaipur Division,

PWD (R&B) for closure of the road at the back side of the

hospital premises permanently with brick boundary wall within 5

days for the safety and security of the hospital. The Minutes of

the meeting dt.27.12.2025 is filed as Annexure –R/5.

j) Subsequently NOC was also obtained from the Gram

Panchayats (Pradhan) of Tepania, Barabhaiya and Pura

Barabhaiya Panchayats by the Medical Superintendent through

the BDO, Tepania RD Block vide letter dt.27.5.2025.

k) Only thereafter, the road was closed.

18) The Chief Secretary (Respondent no.9) has also stated that the

respondent no.8 had directed the Rural Development Department to construct

an alternative road under MNREGA for public convenience and that the said

alternative road was also completed on 13.2.2025. The said road, according to

him, is 65m long and it provides a shorter and direct access to the NH-8 road.

He stated that in due course, this is proposed to be black topped for better

vehicular movement.

19) Once the respondents have provided an alternative road to

residents of Tepania like the petitioners to access the NH-8 road, they cannot

insist that they should be permitted to use the subject road merely because the

record of rights or the Khatian record it as a Public road.

The consideration by the Court:

20) From the above, it is clear that only to prevent severe

inconvenience due to passing of vehicles including heavy vehicles with the

accompanying sound and vehicular pollution to mothers and children and

Page 8 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB

other patients in the District Hospital, Gomati, and also keeping in view the

incidents of theft of valuables from the quarters located in the Hospital

premises, the decision to close the road passing through the said Hospital

premises was taken, and it was then got closed after consultation with the

respective Gram Panchayats and Rogi Kalyan Samiti (RKS).

21) Thus there was ample justification for the respondent Nos.4 and 5

to close the subject road.

22) The petitioners cannot claim ignorance of the fact that the subject

road traverses through the District Hospital, Gomati and that there is a

Maternity and Child wing (MCH) located on one side of the road. But they

suppressed this crucial and material information from the Court in their

pleading in the Writ Petition.

23) The petitioners, in our opinion, cannot be oblivious to the severe

inconvenience to mothers and infants/children admitted in the MCH Wing and

expect them to suffer when heavy trucks and other vehicles cause noise and

pollution while passing on the road portion passing through the Hospital

premises.

24) The fact that the subject road was a public road in certain official

records cannot alone be the determinative factor for allowing men and

vehicles to pass through it because the women and infants admitted in the

Maternity and Child Wing require peace and quiet for their health, and their

interests prevail over that of the petitioners. Since an alternative road has been

provided to access the National Highway, no serious prejudice or

inconvenience can be claimed to have been caused to the petitioners.

Page 9 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB

25) But the petitioners suppressed material facts from this Court and

secured from the Court an order on 2.3.2026 to demolish the structures erected

on the subject road for good and valid reasons. This unconscionable conduct

of the petitioners cannot be countenanced.

26) In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P

1

., it was held that persons

suppressing material facts and securing orders from the Court cannot be

granted any relief. It was declared:

“2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up.

Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth.

They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for

achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by

this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time,

evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant,

who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the

pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any

relief, interim or final.

… … …

6. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath

2

the Court held

that where a preliminary decree was obtained by withholding an

important document from the court, the party concerned deserves

to be thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

7. In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI

3

it was held that in exercising

power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High

Court is not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a

person who invokes the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to place all the facts before

the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of

material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High

1

(2010) 2 SCC 114

2

(1994) 1 SCC 1

3

(2007) 8 SCC 449

Page 10 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB

Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain a

petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court

referred to the judgment of Scrutton, L.J. in R. v. Kensington

Income Tax Commissioners

4

, and observed: (Prestige Lights

Ltd. case, SCC p. 462, para 35)

“In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the

conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the

applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant

materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, then

the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the

matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public

interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the

process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ

jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct

facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are

suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ

courts would become impossible”.

8. … … …

9. In Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India

5

the Court held

that while exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction

under Article 136 of the Constitution, the facts and

circumstances of the case should be seen in their entirety to find

out if there is miscarriage of justice. If the appellant has not

come forward with clean hands, has not candidly disclosed all

the facts that he is aware of and he intends to delay the

proceedings, then the Court will non-suit him on the ground of

contumacious conduct.

10. In K.D. Sharma v. SAIL

6

the Court held that the

jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the

High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is

4

(1917) 1 KB 486 (CA)

5

(2008) 2 SCC 326

6

(2008) 12 SCC 481

Page 11 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB

extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative

that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with

clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court

without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an

appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant

and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the

Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without

considering the merits of the claim…..”(emphasis supplied)

27) We are equally surprised that in the counter affidavit filed by the

Dy. Secretary, PWD (R&B) Department on behalf of all the respondents also,

these crucial and material facts are not stated.

28) Had these important facts stated in the counter affidavit of the

Chef Secretary had been brought to the notice of the Court by the petitioners

in the first instance, or by the respondents in their counter affidavit

dt.17.2.2026, this Court would not have passed the order on 2.3.2026 for

demolition of the structures put up on the subject road.

29) The Court would undoubtedly have given priority to the interests

of the mothers and young children admitted in the MCH wing of the Hospital

over the petitioners’ claim to the use of the subject road.

30) The Dy. Secretary, PWD had certainly been remiss in placing the

full facts before this Court, and rightly, a show cause notice had been issued to

him seeking explanation for misrepresenting facts.

31) We hold that the petitioners had come to the Court with unclean

hands, suppressed relevant and material facts from this Court, and persuaded

this Court to direct demolition of the structures on the subject road

jeopardising public interest. They have in fact committed contempt of Court.

Page 12 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB

32) In Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha

7

, the Supreme Court held

that deceiving the Court by fraud or suppression or concealment of facts

amount to contempt of court.

“This is another case in which an effort has been made to

pollute the stream of administration of justice.

2. …About three decades ago, this Court in Chandra Shashi

v. Anil Kumar Verma

8

was faced with a situation where an

attempt was made to deceive the Court and interfere with the

administration of justice. The litigant was held to be guilty of

contempt of court. It was a case in which the husband had filed

fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking

transfer of matrimonial proceedings. Finding him guilty of

contempt of court, he was sentenced to two weeks’ imprisonment

by this Court. This Court observed as under : (SCC pp. 423-24 &

427, paras 1-2 & 14)

“1. The stream of administration of justice has to remain

unpolluted so that purity of court’s atmosphere may give

vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial

firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of

to maintain the sublimity of court’s environment; so also to

enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction

of all concerned.

2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the

course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with

oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration

of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt

with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to

deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the

faith of people in the system of administration of justice.

***

7

(2024) 4 SCC 432

8

(1995) 1 SCC 421

Page 13 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB

14. The legal position thus is that if the publication be

with intent to deceive the court or one made with an

intention to defraud, the same would be contempt, as it

would interfere with administration of justice. It would, in

any case, tend to interfere with the same. This would

definitely be so if a fabricated document is filed with the

aforesaid mens rea. In the case at hand the fabricated

document was apparently to deceive the court; the intention

to defraud is writ large. Anil Kumar is, therefore, guilty of

contempt.”

3. In K.D. Sharma v. SAIL( 6 supra) it was observed by this

Court : (SCC p. 493, para 39)

“39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington

Income Tax Commrs.3 is kept in mind, an applicant who

does not come with candid facts and “clean breast” cannot

hold a writ of the court with “soiled hands”. Suppression or

concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a

jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation,

which has no place in equitable and prerogative

jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the

material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted

manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent

power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of

its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed

further with the examination of the case on merits. If the

court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court

would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant

requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing

the process of the court.” (emphasis supplied)

33) Such contemnors cannot be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their

contempt by taking advantage of the demolition of the structures put up on the

Page 14 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB

subject road pursuant to this Court’s order dt.2.3.2026secured by them by

suppressing relevant and material facts.

34) In Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P)

Ltd.

9

, the principle that a contemnor ought not to be allowed to permitted to

enjoy the fruits of his contempt has been declared. The Supreme Court has

held:

“17. The principle that a contemner ought not to be permitted to

enjoy and/or keep the fruits of his contempt is well settled. In

Mohd. Idris v. Rustam Jehangir Babuji

10

this Court held clearly

that undergoing the punishment for contempt does not mean that

the court is not entitled to give appropriate directions for

remedying and rectifying the things done in violation of its

orders. The petitioners therein had given an undertaking to the

Bombay High Court. They acted in breach of it. A learned Single

Judge held them guilty of contempt and imposed a sentence of

one month’s imprisonment. In addition thereto, the learned

Single Judge made appropriate directions to remedy the breach

of undertaking. It was contended before this Court that the

learned Judge was not justified in giving the aforesaid directions

in addition to punishing the petitioners for contempt of court. The

argument was rejected holding that “the Single Judge was quite

right in giving appropriate directions to close the breach (of

undertaking)”.

18. The above principle has been applied even in the case of

violation of orders of injunction issued by civil courts. In Clarke

v. Chadburn

11

Sir Robert Megarry V-C observed:

“I need not cite authority for the proposition that it is of

high importance that orders of the court should be obeyed.

Wilful disobedience to an order of the court is punishable as

9

(1996) 4 SCC 622, at page 635

10

(1984) 4 SCC 216

11

(1985) 1 ALL ER 211

Page 15 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB

a contempt of court, and I feel no doubt that such

disobedience may properly be described as being illegal. If

by such disobedience the persons enjoined claim that they

have validly effected some charge in the rights and

liabilities of others, I cannot see why it should be said that

although they are liable to penalties for contempt of court

for doing what they did, nevertheless those acts were validly

done. Of course, if an act is done, it is not undone merely by

pointing out that it was done in breach of the law. If a

meeting is held in breach of an injunction, it cannot be said

that the meeting has not been held. But the legal

consequences of what has been done in breach of the law

may plainly be very much affected by the illegality. It seems

to me on principle that those who defy a prohibition ought

not to be able to claim that the fruits of their defiance are

good, and not tainted by the illegality that produced them.”

19. … … …

20. … … …

21. There is no doubt that this salutary rule has to be applied

and given effect to by this Court, if necessary, by overruling any

procedural or other technical objections.”

35) For all the afore said reasons, we hold that the petitioners had

suppressed material and relevant facts from this Court with a malafide

intention to mislead this court and secure an order for removal of structures

erected on the subject road and also managed to secure such order on

2.3.2026. They have thus polluted the stream of justice and committed

contempt of court also. They cannot be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their

actions.

36) There is a need for this Court to ensure that the injustice done i.e.

the demolition of structures done pursuant to the order dt.2.3.2026, be

Page 16 of 16 2026:THC:506-DB

remedied ex deibito justitae as such order was secured by petitioners by

suppressing relevant and crucial facts from this Court.

37) Therefore, the respondents are directed to erect the structures on

the subject road as they existed prior to their demolition on 10.3.2026 and

recover the cost thereof from the petitioners. The petitioners shall also each

pay to the “Tripura High Court Legal Services Committee” a sum of

Rs.15,000/- as exemplary costs within 4 weeks.

38) The W.P.(C)(PIL) is disposed of accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(BISWAJIT PALIT, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)