Suppression of prior identical proceedings constitutes abuse of process, warranting dismissal of the writ petition with costs.

The appellant, a journalist and editor, filed complaints before the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukta on 30 December 2024 and 17 June 2025 alleging illegalities by Respondent No. 4, a health department officer, and inaction by other officials.

Alleging that no action had been taken, he filed W.P. No. 21940 of 2025 seeking directions for an independent inquiry.

The writ petition was dismissed with costs of ₹50,000 on the ground that it substantially duplicated earlier proceedings concerning the same dispute, including W.P. Nos. 28216 of 2024 and 14372 of 2025, pursued through the same counsel’s office.

The appellant challenged the dismissal, sought expunction of adverse remarks against his counsel, refund of costs, and directions for inquiry into his complaints.

During the appeal, allegations were also made against the Deputy Advocate General for allegedly protecting the concerned officer.

The Court examined the record and noted that the Deputy Advocate General had not represented that officer but had only assisted the Court by bringing the earlier proceedings to its notice.

1. Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed as an abuse or misuse of writ jurisdiction because substantially similar proceedings concerning the same dispute had already been pursued through the same counsel’s office?

2. Whether the appellant was entitled to directions requiring the Lokayukta to conduct an independent inquiry into his complaints?

3. Whether the allegations against the Deputy Advocate General disclosed professional misconduct, breach of legal ethics, or a violation of Section 8 of the Advocates Act?

4. Whether the adverse remarks and costs imposed by the Single Judge warranted interference in appeal?

The Court applied the principle that a litigant invoking the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 must approach the Court with clean hands and must disclose material facts and prior proceedings.

Suppression or non-disclosure of substantially identical litigation may justify dismissal of the proceeding as an abuse or misuse of judicial process and may warrant imposition of costs.

The Court further applied the principle that a law officer does not commit professional misconduct merely by assisting the Court in the bona fide discharge of official duties, including by informing it of prior or parallel proceedings; Section 8 of the Advocates Act was therefore not attracted on the facts.

The Court also applied the appellate principle that interference is unwarranted where the Single Judge’s conclusions are supported by the record.

The Court found that the earlier proceedings initiated by Narendra Kumar Rakeshia involved substantially the same grievance—seeking Lokayukta action against the concerned health officer—and had been conducted through Advocate Amitabh Gupta’s office.

In the earlier proceedings, the Court had already granted relief by directing the competent authority to decide the complaint within 45 days.

The subsequent writ petition filed by Prahlad Sahu sought substantially similar relief, and the material connection with the earlier litigation was not disclosed.

The Court consequently treated the proceeding as a third round of litigation arising from the same dispute and upheld the finding that the writ jurisdiction had been misused.

The Court also rejected the allegations against the Deputy Advocate General because the record showed that he had neither filed a vakalatnama nor appeared for the private respondent.

His disclosure of the earlier proceedings constituted bona fide assistance to the Court and did not amount to professional misconduct, breach of legal ethics, or a violation of Section 8 of the Advocates Act.

Since the appellant’s proceeding was not maintainable on account of duplication and abuse of process, no further mandamus directing an inquiry into the complaints was warranted.

The Court declined to issue any mandamus directing the Lokayukta to decide or independently inquire into the appellant’s complaints.

The allegations against the Deputy Advocate General were held to be unsupported and disclosed no cause of action.

The appellant’s requests for expunction of remarks and refund of costs were consequently not granted.

The appellate Court made no further order as to costs.