Tripura High Court dismisses Tepania PIL, orders reconstruction of demolished hospital road structures, imposes penalties on petitioners for suppressing facts, and rules that misleading the court pollutes justice while upholding patient safety and hospital security concerns.
The Tripura High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging illegal encroachment on a public road passing through the Gomati District Hospital in Tepania, ruling that the petitioners suppressed crucial facts and misled the court. The bench also ordered reconstruction of demolished structures and imposed financial penalties on the petitioners.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit found that the petitioners approached the court with “unclean hands” and failed to disclose key details about the nature and location of the disputed road. The court observed that such conduct amounted to an abuse of judicial process and even constituted contempt of court.
The case stemmed from a PIL filed by residents of Tepania, who alleged that authorities at Gomati District Hospital had blocked a public road connecting Tepania to Barabhaiya in June 2025. According to the petitioners, iron pillars and tin sheets were installed, restricting free movement of the public and causing inconvenience to commuters.
Initially, based on an affidavit submitted by the Public Works Department (PWD), the court had ordered removal of the alleged encroachment on March 2, 2026. The affidavit had acknowledged the obstruction and indicated that administrative action was warranted. Acting on this order, structures erected along the road were demolished on March 10.
However, the course of the case changed after a subsequent affidavit was filed by the Chief Secretary of the state. This affidavit clarified that the road in question runs directly through the hospital premises, dividing sensitive units such as the Maternity and Child Care (MCH) wing and administrative blocks. It further highlighted that unrestricted vehicular movement posed serious risks to patient safety, particularly for women and children.
The state government also informed the court that heavy vehicle traffic had been causing disturbances within the hospital campus, along with incidents of theft and trespassing. To address these concerns, a decision was taken during a meeting of the Rogi Kalyan Samiti, with the approval of local panchayat authorities, to restrict access to the road.
Importantly, the affidavit noted that an alternative route had already been constructed under the MGNREGA, ensuring continued connectivity to National Highway-8. This undermined the petitioners’ claim that the road closure had severely impacted public access.
Taking these facts into account, the court concluded that the closure of the road was justified in the interest of hospital security and patient welfare. It emphasized that the petitioners had deliberately failed to disclose that the road passed through a sensitive medical facility and that its unrestricted use could endanger lives.
“The petitioners suppressed relevant and material facts from this court and persuaded it to pass an order jeopardising public interest,” the bench stated in its judgment. The court added that litigants invoking writ jurisdiction must act in good faith and provide full and honest disclosure of all relevant facts.
In a strongly worded order, the court held that suppression of material facts amounts to “polluting the stream of justice.” It noted that the earlier demolition order would not have been issued had the complete facts been presented at the outset.
The bench further criticized officials of the PWD for failing to present all necessary details in their initial affidavit. It expressed surprise that crucial information was omitted, despite being essential for a fair adjudication of the matter. A show-cause notice has reportedly been issued to the concerned official.
“We are equally surprised that in the counter affidavit filed by the Dy. Secretary, PWD (R&B) Department… these crucial and material facts are not stated,” the court observed, adding that the omission contributed to the erroneous order passed earlier.
As part of its final directions, the court ordered the state authorities to restore the demolished structures to their original condition prior to March 10. It also directed that the cost of reconstruction be recovered from the petitioners, who were held responsible for misleading the court.
Additionally, the bench imposed exemplary costs of Rs 15,000 each on the five petitioners. The amount is to be deposited with the Tripura High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. The court made it clear that litigants who attempt to misuse judicial proceedings for personal or ulterior motives cannot be allowed to benefit from their actions.
“…they have polluted the stream of justice and committed contempt of court also. They cannot be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their actions,” the judgment stated.
| Also Read: HC seeks reply on Anganwadi workers’ long-pending regularization issue |
Legal representation in the case included advocate Arijit Bhaumik, who appeared for the petitioners, while additional government advocate Mangal Debbarma represented the state authorities.
The ruling reinforces the principle that transparency and honesty are fundamental to judicial proceedings, particularly in PIL cases, which are intended to serve public interest. The judgment also underscores the judiciary’s firm stance against misuse of legal mechanisms through concealment or misrepresentation of facts.
