Supreme Court Stays Rs. 15,000 Costs After Tripura High Court Finds PIL Petitioners Suppressed Material Facts
By Our Correspondent
Agartala, August 18, 2026
The Supreme Court of India has issued notice in a Special Leave Petition challenging a judgment of the High Court of Tripura in a public interest litigation concerning the closure of a road passing through the premises of Gomati District Hospital at Udaipur. At the same time, the Supreme Court has stayed the direction requiring each of the five original petitioners to pay Rs.15,000 as exemplary costs to the Tripura High Court Legal Services Committee, along with the related observations contained in the High Court's judgment.
The Supreme Court proceedings arise from SLP (Civil) Diary No. 37288/2026, Ajay Debnath & Ors. versus State of Tripura & Ors., arising out of the final judgment and order dated April 23, 2026, passed by the High Court of Tripura in WP(C)(PIL) No. 01 of 2026. The Supreme Court order was passed on August 17, 2026, by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
The original PIL was filed by five residents of Tepania in Gomati district, Sri Ajay Debnath, Sri Rajib Ranjan Dey, Sri Chandan Debnath, Sri Sanjay Ranjan Dey and Sri Biplab Debnath. According to the High Court judgment, petitioners 1, 3 and 5 were businessmen, while petitioners 2 and 4 were teachers. They approached the High Court seeking removal of what they described as illegal encroachment and construction obstructing a public road at Plot No. 1481, corresponding to Old Plot No. 1860, Khatian No. 3/1, connecting Tepania and Barabhaiya in the Udaipur Sub-Division of Gomati district.
The petitioners were represented before the High Court by Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Advocate, Ms. Ishpa Chakma, Advocate, and Mr. Uday Das, Advocate. The State respondents were represented by Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Additional Government Advocate.
The respondents named in the original PIL were the State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary, Public Works Department (R&B), the Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B), the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Udaipur Sub-Division, the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, the Chief Medical Officer, Gomati District, the Medical Superintendent, Gomati District Hospital, the Secretary, Revenue Department, the District Magistrate and Collector, Gomati District and, subsequently, the Chief Secretary of the State of Tripura. The Chief Secretary was later impleaded by the High Court suo motu as respondent No. 9.
The case centred on a road which, according to the petitioners, had existed for around 50 years and was recorded as a public road. They alleged that in June 2025 the road had been blocked by officials of Gomati District Hospital by installing iron pillars and tin-sheet fencing. They claimed that their representations dated July 8, 2025, and legal notice dated December 8, 2025, did not receive a response, following which they approached the High Court.
However, the subsequent affidavits filed before the High Court revealed a different set of circumstances. A counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary of the PWD on behalf of the respondents admitted the existence of an encroachment on the road passing through the hospital premises. The Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Udaipur had already written to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on February 17, 2026, requesting action for removal of the illegal encroachment.
On March 2, 2026, the High Court initially found fault with respondents 4 to 6, the Health and Family Welfare Department authorities, Chief Medical Officer and Medical Superintendent, for the alleged illegal encroachment and directed the District Magistrate and Collector to take steps for its removal. The Court also brought the Chief Secretary into the case and directed the concerned authorities to file affidavits.
The District Magistrate and Collector subsequently informed the Court that the structures had been demolished and submitted a demolition report dated March 10, 2026.
But the affidavit subsequently filed by the Chief Secretary of Tripura on April 3, 2026, according to the High Court judgment, disclosed several material facts that had not been placed before the Court in the earlier affidavits. The Chief Secretary stated that the road passed through the Gomati District Hospital premises, connecting NH-08 with East Barabhaiya, and that the road pre-dated the establishment of the hospital, which became operational in 2012. The Maternity and Child Care (MCH) Wing and District Early Intervention Centre were situated on one side of the road, while the Medical Superintendent's office and residential quarters were on the other.
The Chief Secretary's affidavit also stated that movement of heavy vehicles, including trucks and buses, through the hospital premises was causing serious inconvenience to patients, particularly women and children in the MCH Wing. The affidavit further referred to incidents involving theft and damage to government staff quarters, including theft of electric wires, generator batteries, diesel and air-conditioner parts. It recorded FIRs and a GD entry relating to theft incidents.
The affidavit further disclosed that the Medical Superintendent had approached the Tepania Block Development Officer in July 2024 and the Executive Engineer, Udaipur Division, PWD (R&B), in November 2025, seeking closure of the road on safety and security grounds. The Rogi Kalyan Samiti meeting held on December 2, 2025, reportedly decided to close the road, and a direction was subsequently given for permanent closure with a brick boundary wall. The High Court was also informed that NOCs had been obtained from the Gram Panchayats of Tepania, Barabhaiya and Pura Barabhaiya before the road was closed.
Importantly, the Chief Secretary informed the Court that an alternative 65-metre road had been constructed under MGNREGA for residents to reach NH-8. The alternative route, according to the affidavit, was completed on February 13, 2025, and was proposed to be blacktopped subsequently. The High Court therefore held that the petitioners could not insist on using the road through the hospital merely because revenue records described it as a public road.
In its April 23 judgment, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit held that there was ample justification for closing the road because of the inconvenience caused to mothers, infants and other patients by heavy vehicles, as well as concerns relating to security within the hospital premises. The Bench observed that the interests of women and infants requiring peace and quiet for their health prevailed over the petitioners' claim to use the road, particularly because an alternative road had been provided.
The most significant part of the judgment concerned the Court's finding that the petitioners had suppressed material facts. The High Court said the petitioners had not disclosed in their pleadings the crucial fact that the road passed through the District Hospital premises and that the MCH Wing was located alongside it. The Court held that this omission was material because it directly affected the question of whether the road should remain open to vehicular traffic.
The High Court further held that the petitioners had secured the March 2 demolition order without bringing those material facts to the Court's notice. Referring to Supreme Court precedents including Dalip Singh v. State of UP, SP Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI, Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India and KD Sharma v. SAIL, the Bench emphasised the requirement that a litigant approaching a writ court must disclose all relevant facts and come with clean hands.
The Bench went further and observed that the petitioners' conduct amounted to contempt of court, holding that they had come to the Court with unclean hands, suppressed relevant and material facts and persuaded the Court to direct demolition of structures in circumstances that, according to the later-disclosed facts, affected public interest. The judgment also criticised the PWD's Deputy Secretary for failing to place the complete facts before the Court, noting that a show-cause notice had been issued to him seeking an explanation for misrepresentation of facts.
The High Court relied further on Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha and other Supreme Court authorities concerning suppression of facts and contempt. It held that persons who secure an order through suppression of material facts should not be permitted to enjoy the benefit or fruits of that order.
Consequently, in paragraph 37 of its final judgment, the High Court directed the respondents to re-erect the structures on the subject road as they existed before their demolition on March 10, 2026, and ordered that the cost be recovered from the five petitioners. In addition, each petitioner was directed to pay Rs.15,000 to the Tripura High Court Legal Services Committee as exemplary costs within four weeks. The PIL was thereafter disposed of and any pending applications were also disposed of.
The case was argued before the Supreme Court by
Mr. Nilotpal Datta, Advocate who hails from Agartala.
more news...