# Nripendra Kumar Dhusia v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 514
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-12
- **Case number:** WRIT - C No. 17483 of 2017
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nripendra-kumar-dhusia-v-union-of-india-ors-45103
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Misleading, false & twisted facts in writ
petition - Effect - Not entitled for any relief -
under Article 226, over and above, a Court
of Law, High Court is also a Court of Equity -
Party must place all facts before the Court
without any reservation - If there is
suppression of material facts or twisted
facts are placed - Writ Court may refuse to
entertain petition and dismiss it without
entering into merits of the matter (Para 34)

Petitioner made false statement in writ petition
that he made registered complaint dated
30.03.2017 to respondent no. 3 - In fact no
such complaint/representation was made by the
petitioner till the filing of the writ petition -
Statutory representation submitted only on
27.4.2017 - Held - Since petitioner not
approached with clean hand hence not entitled
for any relief (Para 33)

Dismissed. (E-5)

Listed of Cases cited:-

## Text

514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)09ILR A514
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

WRIT - C No. 17483 of 2017

Nripendra Kumar Dhusia ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Santosh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Smt. Archana Singh, Sri Pramod
Kumar Pandey, Ms. Manjina Singh

Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Misleading, false & twisted facts in writ
petition - Effect - Not entitled for any relief -
under Article 226, over and above, a Court
of Law, High Court is also a Court of Equity -
Party must place all facts before the Court
without any reservation - If there is
suppression of material facts or twisted
facts are placed - Writ Court may refuse to
entertain petition and dismiss it without
entering into merits of the matter (Para 34)

Petitioner made false statement in writ petition
that he made registered complaint dated
30.03.2017 to respondent no. 3 - In fact no
such complaint/representation was made by the
petitioner till the filing of the writ petition -
Statutory representation submitted only on
27.4.2017 - Held - Since petitioner not
approached with clean hand hence not entitled
for any relief (Para 33)

Dismissed. (E-5)

Listed of Cases cited:-

1. Moody Vs Cox [(1917) 2 Ch 71 : (1916- 17)
All ER Rep 548 (CA)]
2. R v.Kensington Income Tax Commissioners
[(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJ KB 257 : 116 LT 136]

3. Arunima Baruah Vs Union of India (2007) 6
SCC 120

4. Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs S.B.I. (2007) 8 SCC
449

5. Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare
Sanstha Vs St. of U.P. (2008) 1 SCC 560

6. Dalip Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2010) 2 SCC
114

7. Amar Singh Vs Union of India & ors. (2011) 7
SCC 69

8. Kishore Samrite Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2013) 2
SCC 398

(Delivered by 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
9 All. Nripendra Kumar Dhusia Vs. Union of India & Ors.
515
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
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
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
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
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 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."
9 All. Nripendra Kumar Dhusia Vs. Union of India & Ors.
517

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 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 coowner 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 :-

"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.
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(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, 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
9 All. Nripendra Kumar Dhusia Vs. Union of India & Ors.
519
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 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.

*** 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 subjectmatter 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
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 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 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
9 All. Nripendra Kumar Dhusia Vs. Union of India & Ors.
521
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. 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 (nonviolence), 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
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 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 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
9 All. Nripendra Kumar Dhusia Vs. Union of India & Ors.
523
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 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 underArticle 136of 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)].
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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
equifundamentals 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 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 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.
----------
(2020)09ILR A524
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.06.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

WRIT - C No. 17599 of 2006

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation,
Jhansi ...Petitioner