The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirms that suppression of material facts by a litigant justifies dismissal of writ petitions and imposition of exemplary costs, drawing on Supreme Court precedent. However, costs may be reconsidered in cases motivated by bona fide concerns for minors. This ruling upholds existing precedent and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh addressing similar issues in the education sector.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/779/2025 of ISHWARILAL SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010416322025 |
| Date of Registration | 29-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble The Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice & Justice Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Single Judge’s dismissal of writ petition on merits; modifies as to costs |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law (Writ Jurisdiction); Education Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether suppression of material facts in a writ seeking fee exemption during COVID-19 warrants dismissal and costs. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that suppression of material facts by the petitioner, particularly in claims of financial hardship to seek fee exemption for school tuition, justifies dismissal of the writ and imposition of costs under Supreme Court precedent. However, in cases where the litigation is not motivated by personal or commercial gain, but instead seeks relief for a minor, imposition of exemplary costs may be reconsidered. The High Court reaffirmed that mere invocation of COVID-19 hardships is insufficient if not substantiated by genuine evidence. The ratio relies on the principle that courts must deter misuse of judicial process but should balance sanctions with the ends of justice, especially when children’s interests are involved. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, claiming economic duress due to COVID-19, sought exemption from school tuition fees for his ward, citing earlier High Court relief for such requests during the pandemic. However, salary slips submitted by the school showed the petitioner’s income had not decreased as alleged. The Single Judge dismissed the petition with costs for suppression of material facts; the Division Bench upheld the dismissal but set aside the costs, recognizing the bona fide intent to seek relief for a minor. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts facing similar factual patterns or issues |
| Follows |
|
| Distinguishes | The present situation from cases involving genuine financial hardship versus unsubstantiated claims/suppression |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that suppression of material facts regarding financial status in fee exemption cases during COVID-19 will lead to dismissal with costs.
- However, where petitioner’s bona fide concern for a minor child’s welfare motivates the litigation, courts may set aside or reduce costs, even when suppression is found.
- Lawyers must ensure clients fully and truthfully disclose all relevant facts, particularly salary/income details, when seeking fee exemptions or similar reliefs.
- The judgment clarifies that costs are discretionary and context-sensitive, not automatic, even where facts are suppressed.
- Draws a clear distinction between genuine hardship and attempts to misuse COVID-19 hardships for undue relief.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Division Bench considered whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition with costs for suppression of the petitioner’s actual financial situation when seeking exemption from tuition fees during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The Court scrutinized the petitioner’s salary slips vis-à-vis the claimed financial duress and found the allegations of hardship unsubstantiated and material facts deliberately suppressed.
- The court relied on Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar [(2017) 5 SCC 496], where the Supreme Court strongly deprecated such conduct and emphasized deterrence through exemplary costs.
- The court examined the 09.07.2020 Chhattisgarh High Court order, which clarified that parents facing genuine hardship may approach schools but did not grant any blanket exemption from fee collection.
- While upholding the dismissal of the writ on merits due to the petitioner’s conduct, the Division Bench exercised discretion to set aside the imposition of costs, citing the petition’s bona fide intent to secure relief for a minor and not for commercial/personal gain.
- The court thus balanced deterrence of abuse with proportionality and the sensitivities involved in children’s education.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Claimed to be the sole bread earner facing acute financial hardship due to COVID-19 and employer’s measures.
- Sought an exemption from tuition fees for his daughter, citing prior High Court directions during the pandemic.
- Argued that due relief was not provided by state authorities or the school despite financial distress.
Respondent No.5 (Delhi Public School, BALCO):
- Provided salary slips demonstrating the petitioner’s salary did not decrease during the pandemic; in fact, it increased.
- Alleged deliberate suppression of material facts by the petitioner.
- Argued that, as per previous court orders, no blanket exemption was granted and the petitioner was not entitled to relief.
Factual Background
The petitioner, Ishwarilal Sahu, employed as a labourer, sought an exemption from tuition fees for his daughter attending Delhi Public School, BALCO, during the COVID-19 pandemic. He claimed significant financial hardship as a result of the pandemic but failed to disclose his actual salary, which records showed had not decreased. The school contested the exemption on the basis of submitted salary slips. The earlier writ petition seeking exemption was dismissed with costs for suppression of facts, leading to the present appeal to the Division Bench.
Statutory Analysis
- The court interpreted its prior order (09.07.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 1040/2020), clarifying that while private schools may collect tuition fees, genuine cases of financial hardship should be considered on an individual basis by the schools.
- The court did not apply a blanket exemption or prohibit schools from fee collection.
- Supreme Court authority was invoked regarding the consequences of suppression of material facts in writ jurisdiction.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- Hon’ble Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha concurred with Justice Bibhu Datta Guru; there was no dissent.
- Both judges agreed on upholding the dismissal of the writ on merits but set aside the costs in light of the petition’s context.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment reiterates and clarifies that exemplary costs for suppression are not automatic and must be proportionate to the petitioner’s intent and circumstances.
- Provides guidance for considering reduction/removal of costs where bona fide motives are present, especially regarding minors’ welfare.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The division bench affirms and applies the Supreme Court’s approach to suppressing material facts and the exercise of discretionary costs in writ proceedings.