The Allahabad High Court last week dismissed a writ petition seeking permission to operate the bank accounts of a degree college by imposing ₹1L Costs as it found that the petitioner had "deliberately withheld" material facts concerning a long-running management dispute and previous proceedings before the Court.

A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary noted that the petitioner had attempted to present a heavily contested dispute over the management of the society running the college as a simple case concerning the de-freezing of bank accounts.

The Court termed the petition a “gross abuse of the process of law” and imposed deterrent exemplary costs of ₹1 lakh.

Case in brief

The petition was filed by Abida Banno, claiming to be the Manager of Maseehunnisa Degree College, Khajohna, District Hardoi.

She sought a writ directing the respondent banks to permit the operation of the college's bank accounts and to recognize her as the authorized Manager/signatory for operating those accounts.

She also sought a direction restraining interference with the lawful functioning of the institution and its bank accounts except in accordance with law.

When the Court inquired about when the accounts had been inoperative, her counsel stated that they had been frozen since 2020.

The Court noted that the petition did not explain the circumstances in which the accounts had been frozen. The petitioner relied primarily on a representation dated May 15, 2026, seeking restoration of access to the accounts.

The Court found that the bank account issue could not be separated from a long-running dispute concerning Kishan Shiksha Sansthan, Jaitnagar, the society that runs the college.

The dispute arose after the death of the society's Founder Manager on January 15, 2020, with rival groups led by Abida Banno and her sister Uzma Faheem claiming control over the society.

The Court took note of a series of proceedings concerning the society's renewal, elections, Executive Committee and college affiliation.

Among them was a writ petition filed by Abida Banno challenging the cancellation of the society's renewal. That challenge was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy and her subsequent appeal was also dismissed. A later writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Court also noted that the approval of the election of the rival Executive Committee had prima facie attained finality after a Division Bench allowed a special appeal on January 25, 2023.

Against this background, the High Court found that the petitioner had failed to disclose the material developments between 2020 and 2023.

High Court's observations

The Bench observed that she had attempted to keep the Court in the dark so as to obtain a favorable order by "camouflaging the heavily contested management of society dispute into an alleged simplicitor case of de-freezing the Bank accounts".

The Court also found it significant that the mention of 2020 was not part of the original typed writ petition and the same was subsequently inserted by hand-writing in paragraph No. 11 of the petition

Even when directly questioned about when the accounts had been frozen, the petitioner did not disclose the true circumstances and continued to rely on her representation to the banks. Therefore, the Court observed thus:

"A litigant invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is expected to come with clean hands, a clear mind, and complete candour".

The High Court remarked that the petitioner's omission went beyond a procedural lapse.

It found that she had been an active participant in the management dispute and had herself been represented as a respondent in a previous writ petition in which an interim order had been passed.

The Court therefore concluded that she was aware of the proceedings that directly bore on her claim to operate the bank accounts.

The Bench stated that suppression or concealment of material facts "is not a mere irregularity, but amounts to playing fraud upon the Court", particularly because the duty of disclosure extends to facts adverse to the litigant as well.

Relying on various Supreme Court judgments, the Court reiterated that a person invoking writ jurisdiction must place true, complete and correct facts before the Court and a litigant who approaches the Court without clean hands may be denied relief.

The Court ultimately held that the writ petition had been filed as a “gross abuse of the process of law on account of deliberate suppression of material facts” and therefore deserved dismissal with exemplary costs.

Considering the gravity of the matter and the “wastage of precious Judicial time”, the Bench imposed deterrent exemplary costs of ₹1 lakh on the petitioners.

The amount is to be deposited jointly or severally with the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority in Lucknow within one month. In default, it would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue.

Case Title: Masihunnisa Degree College Thru. Manager Abida Banno And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 641

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 641

Click Here To Read/Download Order