Suppressing a pending challenge to the underlying order disentitles a litigant to writ relief.

Syed Yousuf challenged the promotion of Kausar Parveen as Head Mistress.

After an initial appeal was dismissed, the Government allowed his Appeal No. 4/2007; on Kausar Parveen’s review petition, however, the Government set aside that decision and dismissed the appeal on 23 July 2021.

Yousuf then sought a mandamus for preparation and release of a bill for Rs. 7,15,438, with interest.

The Single Judge partly allowed his petition and directed the State to consider his claim and pay the amount found due.

The Division Bench noted that Yousuf had separately challenged the review order in W.P. No. 202289/2021, which remained pending, but had not disclosed that proceeding in the petition leading to the Single Judge’s order.

Yousuf’s counsel did not oppose the State’s appeal.

Whether the Single Judge’s order directing consideration and payment of Yousuf’s monetary claim should be set aside because he had not disclosed the pending writ petition challenging the Government’s review order.

Whether the connected appeal filed by Kausar Parveen remained for consideration after disposal of the State’s appeal.

Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 provides for an intra-court appeal.

The Court applied the principle that suppression or misrepresentation of a material fact in a writ proceeding may undermine the relief obtained; it found that Yousuf’s pending challenge to the review order was material to the basis on which the Single Judge had granted relief.

The Single Judge’s direction was based on the Government’s decision in Appeal No. 4/2007. But that decision had been set aside in review, and Yousuf’s challenge to the review order was pending when he pursued the monetary-claim petition.

Because that proceeding was not brought to the Single Judge’s attention, the Division Bench held that the order had resulted from suppression and misrepresentation of material facts.

It therefore set aside the order without deciding the underlying dispute on its merits, leaving the pending writ petition to be decided independently of the observations in the appeal.

The Single Judge was directed to decide W.P. No. 202289/2021 without being influenced by the appellate judgment.

Kausar Parveen’s connected appeal was disposed of as infructuous, with the parties’ contentions kept open.