1

A.F.R.

Court No. - 4

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17483 of 2017

Petitioner :- Nripendra Kumar Dhusia

Respondent :- Union Of India Thru Secy. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Archana

Singh,Pramod Kumar Pandey

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

Per Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

1.Personal affidavit of the petitioner filed today in the

Court is taken on record.

2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3.The office of learned Additional Solicitor General of

India has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent

no.1. Ms. Manjina Singh, learned counsel, holding brief of

Smt. Archana Singh appears for the respondents no.2 and

3.

4.Notice need not to be issued to respondent no. 4 in

view of the order which is proposed to be passed today.

5.The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition

with the following prayers :-

“I.Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of

Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent

no.3 not give any effect to the draw of lot/bidding

process taken place on 29.03.2017 for allotment of

Kishan Sewa Kendra Village Retail Out-let dealership

at MDR-167 (Chitbaragaon to Ghazipur Road), Block

Sohaon, District Ballia only.

II.Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of

Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent

no.3 to get hold inquiry on the

2

complaint/representation dated 30.03.2017 submitted

by the petitioner personally and take appropriate

decision for fresh draw of lot/bidding process only in

respect of MDR-167 (Chitbaragaon to Ghazipur Road)

Block Sohaon, Tehsil Ballia Sadar, District Ballia.

III.Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of

Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent

no.3 not permit to respondent no.4 for any auction if

such draw of lot/bidding of process given in favour of

the respondent no.4 at M.D.R.-167 (Chitbaragaon to

Ghazipur Road) Block Sohaon, Tehsil Ballia Sadar,

District Ballia.”

6.The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are

that the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. published

an advertisement on 17.10.2014 for appointment of large

number of dealers for opening of Kishan Sewa Kendra

Village Retail Out let dealership in the State of U.P. At serial

number 145 of the aforesaid advertisement the location

was mentioned as MDR-167, (Chitbara Gaon to Ghazipur

Road) at Firozpur Block Sohaon, Tehsil Ballia Sadar, District

Ballia. The location in question is reserved for schedule

caste category candidates.

7.For the purpose of establishment of Kishan Sewa

Kendra one of the necessary condition was for the

applicants to provide land for establishment of the retail

outlet. The land proposed to be provided by the applicants

are of two types namely Group 1 type (own land) or Group

2 type (firm).

8.The petitioner has applied for the location in question

providing land under Group A category. It is contended that

all the necessary papers and documents were duly

submitted by the petitioner along-with his application

form. It is further contended that after the application form

was submitted by the petitioner the respondent

3

no.3/Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil

Corporation Limited (MD), Varanasi Divisional Office,

District Varanasi issued a letter to the petitioner on

31.7.2016 asking certain more details/documents. It is

stated that the informations were duly provided by the

petitioner in the office of the respondent no.3 well within

time and all the deficiencies were removed by him.

9.The petitioner received another letter dated

30.12.2016 by which he was directed that the Land

Evaluation Committee (LEC) will visit site of land and as

such he was requested to be present on the site along-with

photo identity card on 18.1.2017. The Land Evaluation

Committee inspected the land offered by the petitioner as

well as respondent no.4 on 18.1.2017 and submitted its

report to the Corporation. It is stated in paragraph 13 of

the writ petition that the land offered by the respondent

no.4 was not appropriate for establishment of Kishan Sewa

Kendra as such the application submitted by the

respondent no.4 was liable to be rejected. It is further

contended that for the location in question only two

applicants were found suitable namely petitioner and

respondent no.4 and since the land offered by the

respondent no.4 was not upto mark it is only the

petitioner, who was entitled for consideration of his case

for the location in question.

10.A letter dated 7.3.2017 was issued by the

respondents Corporation permitting the petitioner to

participate in the draw of lot/bidding, which was scheduled

to be held on 29.3.2017. The identical information was also

given by the Corporation to the respondent no.4. The draw

of lots/bidding for the location in question was held on

4

29.3.2017 in which the respondent no.4 was found to be

selected. Large number of allegations were made in the

writ petition against the respondent no.4 specially in

respect of the land provided by him for the location in

question. Raising his grievances a representation was

submitted by the petitioner addressed to the respondent

no.3/Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil

Corporation Limited (MD), Varanasi Divisional Office,

District Varanasi, on 30.3.2017, copy of which is appended

as annexure 7 to the writ petition.

11.It is further argued that inspite of the fact that the

aforesaid representation was submitted by the petitioner

no orders were passed on the same by the respondent

Corporation. Being aggrieved against the selection of

respondent no.4 the petitioner has preferred the present

writ petition.

12.When the matter was taken up as fresh on 25.4.2017

following order was passed by another Coordinate Bench

of this Courts :-

“On the matter being taken up today, Smt. Archana

Singh, Advocate, on the basis of instructions in

question that have been so received dated

21.04.2017, made a categorical statement before us

that till date the Indian Oil Corporation has not

received any representation from Shri Nripendra

Kumar Dhusia in reference to the subject location.

The record in question reflects that specially the

averments that have been mentioned in paragraph

24 of the Writ Petition wherein petitioner has

proceeded to make statement to the effect that after

it has come to the knowledge of petitioner that large

scale illegality, irregularity as well as fraud and

concealment has been made by respondent no.4,

immediately he has approached respondent no.3 i.e.

Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil

Corporation Limited (MD) Varanasi, Divisional Office

5

N.H.-31 Babatpur Road, P.O. Harhua, District Varanasi

and complaint has been made.

Once before us a categorical stand has been taken

that false statement of fact has been mentioned and

no such complaint has been received in the office of

respondent no.3, in view of this, we take serious note

of the matter and we proceed to ask Shri Nripendra

Kumar Dhusia as to under what circumstances, he

has proceeded to make statement of fact in

paragraph 24 of the Writ Petition and at what point of

time he has proceeded to send/deliver the said

appeal in the office of respondent no.3.

Confronted with this situation, counsel for the

petitioner has requested that the matter be taken up

on Monday next i.e. .01.05.2017 so that an affidavit

can come before us.

Request made is accepted.

List this matter on 01.05.2017 so that counsel for the

petitioner is in a position to file an affidavit as has

been requested and in case we find that false

statement of fact has been made in the matter,

action can be taken against petitioner.”

13.In response to the same a personal affidavit was filed

by the petitioner. In the personal affidavit filed by the

petitioner it is stated that the registered complaint

submitted by the petitioner was neither returned back nor

taken on record by the respondent Corporation. Along-with

supplementary affidavit the photo copy of the complaint

dated 30.3.2017 was appended as annexure 2. It appears

from perusal of the annexure 2 to the personal affidavit

that the said complaint was received in the office of the

respondent no.3 on 27.4.2017.

14.In paragraph 24 of the writ petition, the following

averments were made by the petitioner :-

“That the petitioner after came in knowledge

about the illegality, irregularity as well as fraud

and concealment playing by respondent no.4

6

immediately approached before respondent no.3

through written complaint/representation dated

30.03.2017 to the respondent no.3 along with sale

deed and Khatauni showing the name of Smt.

Soniya co-owner become only after L.E.C. Report.”

15.After the order dated 25.4.2017 passed by Coordinate

Bench of this Court in the present writ petition it appears

that the aforesaid application was sought to be served by

the petitioner in the office of respondent no.3 on

27.4.2017, which is clear from the perusal of annexure 2 to

the personal affidavit. Apart from the same a bank draft of

Rs.1,000/- which was required to be submitted along-with

the complaint dated 27.4.2017 accompanied the same.

From perusal of the same, it is clear that no complaint

whatsoever has been submitted by the petitioner on

30.3.2017 as stated by him in paragraph 24 of the writ

petition.

16.From perusal of the facts as narrated above, it is clear

that absolutely wrong averment has been made by the

petitioner while filing the present writ petition. In

paragraph 24 of the writ petition it is stated by the

petitioner that after the petitioner came to know about the

fraud and concealment by the respondent-corporation

authorities he immediately approached before respondent

no.3 through written complaint/representation dated

30.3.2017.

17.The brochure issued by the oil companies namely

Indian Oil, Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum

contain provisions governing the selections of Dealers for

Regular & Rural Retail Outlets. Clause 17 of the brochure

clause is about the grievance redressal system, the same

is quoted hereinbelow :-

7

“17. GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL SYSTEM

Any complaint should be accompanied by a fee of Rs.

1000/-, only in the form of demand draft of schedule

bank, in favour of the Oil Company. Any complaint

received without this fee will not be entertained. The

complaint received against the selection including

eligibility will be disposed off as under:-

(i) Complaints received before or after draw of

lots/bidding process along with requisite fee of Rs.

1000/-, will be kept in record and investigation carried

out after 30 days of Draw of Lots/bidding process only

in following cases:-

. General complaints with verifiable facts

. Complaints against selected candidate

(ii) Any complaint received after 30 days from the date

of draw of lots/bidding process will not be entertained.

(iii) Anonymous complaints without verifiable facts will

not be investigated.

(iv) On receipt of a complaint, the complainant would

be asked to submit details of allegation with a view to

prima facie substantiate the allegations along with

supporting documents, if any. While seeking

documents and details, the complainant will be

advised that if during the investigations, complaint is

found to be false and/or without substance, the

Corporation reserves the right to take action against

the complainant as provided under the law and fee

forfeited.

(v) In case a complaint is received against an

applicant, who has not been selected in draw of

lots/bidding process, the same will be kept in

abeyance. In case the LOI against selected candidate

is cancelled and the applicant against whom the

complaint was received gets selected in the next draw

or on account of bidding process, the complaint will

only then be investigated.

(vi) If the complaint is not required to be investigated

the fee received will be refunded to the complainant

informing that the complaint has not been investigated

since the candidate against whom the complaint has

been made has not been selected. The fee will be

refunded after issuance of LOA to the selected

candidate.

(vii) Corporation will examine response of the

complainant and if it is found that the complaint does

not have specific and verifiable allegations, the same

will be filed and complaint fee will be forfeited.

Version 24 II / 09.10.2014

(viii) If a decision is taken to investigate the complaint,

8

decision on the complaint will be taken as under and

intimated to the complainant:-

a) Complaints not substantiated :

In case the complaint is not substantiated it will be

filed and complaint fee will be forfeited.

b) Established Complaints:

In case of established complaint, suitable action would be

taken and complaint fee collected will be refunded.”

18.It reveals from perusal of the facts as narrated in the

supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner that no such

complaint has been made by the petitioner before the

respondent authorities on 30.3.2017. In view of the fact,

petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hand

hence he is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him in

the present writ petition.

19.Law in this connection is well settled that he who

seeks equity must do equity, he who comes into equity

must come with clean hands.

20.It is settled law that a court of equity refuses relief to

a plaintiff whose conduct in regard to the subject-matter of

the litigation has been improper.

21. In the case of Moody v. Cox [(1917) 2 Ch 71 : (1916-

17) All ER Rep 548 (CA)] it was held:

"When one asks on what principle this is

supposed to be based, one receives in answer the

maxim that anyone coming to equity must come with

clean hands. I think the expression clean hands is used

more often in the textbooks than it is in the

judgments, though it is occasionally used in the

judgments, but I was very much surprised to hear that

when a contract, obtained by the giving of a bribe, had

been affirmed by the person who had a primary right

to affirm it, not being an illegal contract, the courts of

equity could be so scrupulous that they would refuse

any relief not connected at all with the bribe. I was

glad to find that it was not the case, because I think it

is quite clear that the passage in Dering v. Earl of

9

Winchelsea [(1787) 1 Cox Eq Cas 318: 2 Bos & P 270],

which has been referred to, shows that equity will not

apply the principle about clean hands unless the

depravity, the dirt in question on the hand, has an

immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued

for."

22.In the case of R v.. Kensington Income Tax

Commissioners, [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJ KB 257 :

116 LT 136], it was held that :-

“35. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy

is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary

power, therefore, a Writ Court will indeed bear in

mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such

jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full

facts or suppresses relevant materials or is

otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court

may dismiss the action without adjudicating the

matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public

interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing

the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis

of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true,

complete and correct facts. If the material facts are

not candidly stated or are suppressed or are

distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts

would become impossible.”

23.In the case of Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn.,

Vol. 16, pp. 874- 76, the law is stated in the following terms:

"1303. He who seeks equity must do

equity.--In granting relief peculiar to its own

jurisdiction a court of equity acts upon the rule

that he who seeks equity must do equity. By this

it is not meant that the court can impose arbitrary

conditions upon a plaintiff simply because he

stands in that position on the record. The rule

means that a man who comes to seek the aid of a

court of equity to enforce a claim must be

prepared to submit in such proceedings to any

directions which the known principles of a court

of equity may make it proper to give; he must do

justice as to the matters in respect of which the

assistance of equity is asked. In a court of law it is

otherwise: when the plaintiff is found to be

entitled tojudgment, the law must take its course;

no terms can be imposed.

10

*** 1305. He who comes into equity must

come with clean hands.--A court of equity refuses

relief to a plaintiff whose conduct in regard to the

subject-matter of the litigation has been

improper. This was formerly expressed by the

maxim „he who has committed iniquity shall not

have equity‟, and relief was refused where a

transaction was based on the plaintiff's fraud or

misrepresentation, or where the plaintiff sought

to enforce a security improperly obtained, or

where he claimed a remedy for a breach of trust

which he had himself procured and whereby he

had obtained money. Later it was said that the

plaintiff in equity must come with perfect

propriety of conduct, or with clean hands. In

application of the principle a person will not be

allowed to assert his title to property which he

has dealt with so as to defeat his creditors or

evade tax, for he may not maintain an action by

setting up his own fraudulent design.

The maxim does not, however, mean that

equity strikes at depravity in a general way; the

cleanliness required is to be judged in relation to

the relief sought, and the conduct complained of

must have an immediate and necessary relation

to the equity sued for; it must be depravity in a

legal as well as in a moral sense. Thus, fraud on

the part of a minor deprives him of his right to

equitable relief notwithstanding his disability.

Where the transaction is itself unlawful it is not

necessary to have recourse to this principle. In

equity, just as at law, no suit lies in general in

respect of an illegal transaction, but this is on the

ground of its illegality, not by reason of the

plaintiff's demerits."

(See also Snell's Equity, 13th Edn., pp. 30-32

and Jai Narain Parasrampuria v. Pushpa Devi Saraf

[(2006) 7 SCC 756] .)

24.In the case of Spry on Equitable Remedies, 4th Edn.,

p. 5, referring to Moody v. Cox [(1917) 2 Ch 71 : (1916-17)

All ER Rep 548 (CA)] and Meyers v. Casey[(1913) 17 CLR

90] it is stated:

"... that the absence of clean hands is of no

account „unless the depravity, the dirt in question

on the hand, has an immediate and necessary

relation to the equity sued for‟. When such

11

exceptions or qualifications are examined it

becomes clear that the maxim that predicates a

requirement of clean hands cannot properly be

regarded as setting out a rule that is either

precise or capable of satisfactory operation."

25.Although the aforementioned statement of law was made

in connection with a suit for specific performance of contract,

the same may have a bearing in determining a case of this

nature also.

26.In the said treatise, it was also stated at pp. 170-71:

"In these cases, however, it is necessary

that the failure to disclose the matters in

question, and the consequent error or

misapprehension of the defendant, should be

such that performance of his obligations would

bring about substantial hardship or unfairness

that outweighs matters tending in favour of

specific performance. Thus, the failure of the

plaintiff to explain a matter of fact, or even, in

some circumstances, to correct a

misunderstanding of law, may incline the court to

take a somewhat altered view of considerations

of hardship, and this will be the case, especially

where it appears that at the relevant times the

plaintiff knew of the ignorance or

misapprehension of the defendant but

nonetheless did not take steps to provide

information or to correct the material error, or a

fortiori, where he put the defendant off his guard

or hurried him into making a decision without

proper enquiry."

27.In the case of Arunima Baruah Vs. Union of India

reported in 2007 (6) SCC 120 it was held by the Supreme

Court that :-

"12. It is trite law that so as to enable the

court to refuse to exercise its discretionary

jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact.

What would be a material fact, suppression

whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain a

discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts

and circumstances of each case. Material fact

would mean material for the purpose of

determination of the lis, the logical corollary

12

whereof would be that whether the same was

material for grant or denial of the relief. If the fact

suppressed is not material for determination of

the lis between the parties, the court may not

refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. It

is also trite that a person invoking the

discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be

allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands.

But even if the said dirt is removed and the hands

become clean, whether the relief would still be

denied is the question.”

28. Certain more observations in this regard has been

made by the Supreme Court in the case of Prestige

Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India, reported in

(2007) 8 SCC 449, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in

para 35 as under:-

"35. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy

is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary

power, therefore, a writ court will indeed bear in mind

the conduct of the party who is invoking such

jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full

facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise

guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss

the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule

has been evolved in larger public interest to deter

unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of

court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ

jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and

correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly

stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very

functioning of the writ courts would become

impossible."

29.In the case of Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog

Welfare Sanstha V. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 1

SCC 560, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under in

para 16:-

"16. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A

person approaching a superior court must come

with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not

suppress any material fact, but also should not

take recourse to the legal proceedings over and

over again which amounts to abuse of the process

of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar V.

13

M.P.Khair Industries this Court was of the opinion

that such a repeated filing of writ petitions

amounts to criminal contempt."

30.Apart from the same, in the case of Dalip Singh Vs.

State of U.P. and others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114,

this Court has given this concept a new dimension which

has a far reaching effect. We, therefore, repeat those

principles here again:

"For many centuries Indian society cherished

two basic values of life i.e. "satya"(truth) and

"ahimsa (non-violence), Mahavir, Gautam Budha and

Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these

values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral

part of the justice-delivery system which was in

vogue in the pre- independence era and the people

used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts

irrespective of the consequences. However, post-

Independence period has seen drastic changes in our

value system. The materialism has overshadowed

the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has

become so intense that those involved in litigation do

not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood,

misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the

court proceedings.

In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has

cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not

have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort

to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their

goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this

new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to

time, evolved new rules and it is now well established

that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of

justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice

with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief,

interim or final."

31.In the case of Amar Singh vs. Union of India &

Others reported in 2011(7) SCC 69, on the aspect of a

litigant approaching the court, with unclean hands, at,

paragraphs 53 to 57, and at, paragraph 59, which is

quoted hereinbelow :-

"53. Courts have, over the centuries, frowned

14

upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead

the courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure

of facts. Courts held that such litigants have come with

"unclean hands" and are not entitled to be heard on

the merits of their case.

54. In Dalglish v. Jarvie {2 Mac. & G. 231,238},

the Court, speaking through Lord Langdale and Rolfe

B., laid down:

"It is the duty of a party asking for an injunction to

bring under the notice of the Court all facts

material to the determination of his right to that

injunction; and it is no excuse for him to say that he

was not aware of the importance of any fact which

he has omitted to bring forward."

55. In Castelli v. Cook {1849 (7) Hare, 89,94},

Vice Chancellor Wigram, formulated the same

principles as follows:

"A plaintiff applying ex parte comes

under a contract with the Court that he will

state the whole case fully and fairly to the

Court. If he fails to do that, and the Court

finds, when the other party applies to

dissolve the injunction, that any material fact

has been suppressed or not properly brought

forward, the plaintiff is told that the Court will

not decide on the merits, and that, as has

broken faith with the Court, the injunction

must go."

56. In the case of Republic of Peru v. Dreyfus

Brothers & Company {55 L.T. 802,803}, Justice Kay

reminded us of the same position by holding:

"...If there is an important misstatement,

speaking for myself, I have never hesitated,

and never shall hesitate until the rule is

altered, to discharge the order at once, so as to

impress upon all persons who are suitors in this

Court the importance of dealing in good faith

with the Court when ex parte applications are

made."

57. In one of the most celebrated cases upholding

this principle, in the Court of Appeal in R. V. Kensington

Income Tax Commissioner {1917 (1) K.B. 486} Lord

Justice Scrutton formulated as under:

"and it has been for many years the rule of the

Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to

maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to

obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a

full and fair disclosure of all the material facts- facts, now

15

law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it - the

court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing

about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and

fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court

enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the

facts have been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will

set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the

imperfect statement."

59. The aforesaid requirement of coming to Court

with clean hands has been repeatedly reiterated by this

Court in a large number of cases. Some of which may

be noted, they are: Hari Narain v. Badri Das- AIR 1963

SC 1558, Welcome Hotel and others v. State of A.P. and

others - (1983) 4 SCC 575, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy

(Dead) by LRs. And another v. Government of Karnatka

and another – JT 1991(3) SC 12: (1991) 3 SCC 261, S.P.

Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath

(Dead) by LRs. and others - JT 1993 (6) SC 331: (1994)

1 SCC 1, A.V.

Papayya Sastry and others v. Government of A.P.

and others – JT 2007 (4) SC 186: (2007) 4 SCC 221,

Prestige Lights Limited v. SBI - JT 2007(10) SC 218:

(2007) 8 SCC 449, Sunil Poddar and others v. Union

Bank of India – JT 2008(1) SC 308: (2008) 2 SCC 326,

K.D.Sharma v. SAIL and others - JT 2008 (8) SC 57:

(2008) 12 SCC 481, G. Jayashree and others v.

Bhagwandas S. Patel and others – JT 2009(2) SC 71 :

(2009) 3 SCC 141,Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and

others – JT 2009 (15) SC 201: (2010) 2 SCC 114.”

32.In the case of Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P. &

Others reported in 2013(2) SCC 398 , at paragraphs 32

to 36, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"32. With the passage of time, it has been

realised that people used to feel proud to tell the

truth in the Courts, irrespective of the consequences

but that practice no longer proves true, in all cases.

The Court does not sit simply as an umpire in a

contest between two parties and declare at the end

of the combat as to who has won and who has lost

but it has a legal duty of its own, independent of

parties, to take active role in the proceedings and

reach at the truth, which is the foundation of

administration of justice. Therefore, the truth should

become the ideal to inspire the courts to pursue.

This can be achieved by statutorily mandating the

Courts to become active seekers of truth. To enable

16

the courts to ward off unjustified interference in

their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like

perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehood,

must be appropriately dealt with. The parties must

state forthwith sufficient factual details to the extent

that it reduces the ability to put forward false and

exaggerated claims and a litigant must approach

the Court with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of

the Court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt

to surpass the legal process must be effectively

curbed and the Court must ensure that there is no

wrongful, unauthorised or unjust gain to anyone as a

result of abuse of the process of the Court. One way

to curb this tendency is to impose realistic or

punitive costs.

33. The party not approaching the Court with clean

hands would be liable to be non-suited and such

party, who has also succeeded in polluting the

stream of justice by making patently false

statements, cannot claim relief, especially

under Article 136 of the Constitution. While

approaching the court, a litigant must state correct

facts and come with clean hands. Where such

statement of facts is based on some information,

the source of such information must also be

disclosed. Totally misconceived petition amounts to

abuse of the process of the court and such a litigant

is not required to be dealt with lightly, as a petition

containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if

filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to

abuse of the process of the court. A litigant is bound

to make full and true disclosure of facts. (Refer :

Tilokchand H.B. Motichand & Ors. v. Munshi & Anr.

[1969 (1) SCC 110]; A. Shanmugam v. Ariya

Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana

Paripalanai Sangam & Anr. [(2012) 6 SCC

430];Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [(1995)

SCC 1 421]; Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India &

Ors. [(2011) 6 SCC 145]; State of Madhya Pradesh v.

Narmada Bachao Andolan & Anr. [(2011) 7 SCC

639];Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India & Anr. [(2011)

3 SCC 287)].

34. The person seeking equity must do equity. It is

not just the clean hands, but also clean mind, clean

heart and clean objective that are the equi-

fundamentals of judicious litigation. The legal

maxim jure naturae aequum est neminem cum

alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem,

which means that it is a law of nature that one

should not be enriched by the loss or injury to

another, is the percept for Courts. Wide jurisdiction

17

of the court should not become a source of abuse of

the process of law by the disgruntled litigant.

Careful exercise is also necessary to ensure that the

litigation is genuine, not motivated by extraneous

considerations and imposes an obligation upon the

litigant to disclose the true facts and approach the

court with clean hands.

35. No litigant can play hide and seek with the

courts or adopt pick and choose. True facts ought to

be disclosed as the Court knows law, but not facts.

One, who does not come with candid facts and clean

breast cannot hold a writ of the court with soiled

hands. Suppression or concealment of material facts

is impermissible to a litigant or even as a technique

of advocacy. In such cases, the Court is duty bound

to discharge rule nisi and such applicant is required

to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing

the process of the court. {K.D. Sharma v. Steel

Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481].”

33.From perusal of the facts as narrated in the writ

petition specially in paragraph 24 of the writ petition in

which the petitioner has stated that he has already made a

representation before the respondents authorities but from

perusal of the supplementary affidavit filed by him it is

clear that no representation was made by the petitioner till

the time of the filing of the writ petition. Statutory

representation was submitted by him for the first time on

27.4.2017, copy of which is appended as annexure no.2 to

the personal affidavit, which was submitted by him within

the statutory period of 30 days but since wrong facts have

been stated by the petitioner in the writ petition he is not

entitled for any relief specially under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

34.The High Court is exercising discretionary and

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a

Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that

when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all

18

the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there

is suppression of material facts on the part of the

petitioner or twisted facts have been placed before the

Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition

and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.

35.Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the present

writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

36.In view of the same, present writ petition is dismissed

with cost.

Order Date :- 12.9.2019

Pramod Tripathi