Suppression of material facts in Public Interest Litigation warrants dismissal with exemplary costs and restitution.

Five residents of Tepania filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of alleged illegal encroachments and constructions on a public road in Udaipur Sub-Division

They claimed the road had existed for 50 years and was blocked in June 2025 by District Hospital officials

Initially, the PWD filed an affidavit admitting the encroachment, leading the Court to order the demolition of the barriers on March 2, 2026

However, a subsequent affidavit by the Chief Secretary revealed that the road traverses the Gomati District Hospital premises, specifically between the Maternity and Child Care (MCH) Wing and residential quarters

The road was closed due to security concerns (thefts), noise, and pollution affecting patients, following resolutions by the Rogi Kalyan Samiti and the provision of an alternative road

1. Whether the petitioners were guilty of suppressing material facts regarding the location of the road and the reasons for its closure

2. Whether the court should allow the petitioners to retain the benefit of a demolition order obtained through such suppression

A litigant invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 must come with "clean hands," as established in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI, which mandates full disclosure of all material facts

Suppression of material facts justifies dismissal without merit adjudication and may constitute contempt of court (Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and K.D. Sharma v. SAIL)

Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, affirming that suppression of material facts justifies dismissal and may constitute contempt of court

Doctrine from DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., which states that a contemnor/litigant should not be permitted to enjoy the fruits of an order obtained through illegality or deception

The Court found that the petitioners intentionally suppressed the fact that the subject road passed through a hospital's sensitive MCH Wing, causing distress to infants and mothers

While the road was recorded as "public" in revenue records, the Court held this was not the sole determinative factor; the peace and health of patients outweighed the petitioners' right of way, especially since a 65m alternative road had already been constructed

The Court criticized the PWD officials for being remiss in their initial counter-affidavit but placed primary blame on the petitioners for "polluting the stream of justice"

By failing to mention the hospital's safety concerns and the alternative access, the petitioners misled the Court into passing a demolition order that jeopardized public interest and hospital security

It set aside the previous relief and directed the respondents to re-erect the structures on the subject road as they existed prior to the demolition on March 10, 2026

The Court ordered that the costs of re-construction be recovered from the petitioners and imposed exemplary costs of ₹15,000 each, payable to the Tripura High Court Legal Services Committee. The PIL was disposed of with these directions.