- (1.) ARUN Tandon, J. Heard Sri K. L. Grover, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri R. K. Paul Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri C. K. Parekh Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 2.
(2.) SRI Subhash Chandra Miglani, the petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Saharanpur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 143 of 2003 arising out of Case No. 12 of 2001 (Nagar Palika Parishad v. Subhash Chandra Miglani) in proceedings under the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972. After the arguments were heard at some length reference was made on behalf of the petitioner to para 10 of the writ petition which reads as follows: "10. That feeling aggrieved by the notice dated 3-3-1990 which was issued to all the 14 shop owners who all were given lease right by the proposal dated 31-7-89 by proposal No. 688 dated 31- 7-89 filed a suit No. 175 of 1990 before the Civil Judge, Saharanpur and the learned Civil Judge, by judgment and order dated 30-5-1990 granted the permanent injunction against the respondents. A true copy of the judgment and order dated 30-5- 1990 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-4 to this writ petition. " From the aforesaid paragraph it is apparently clear that an impression has been given to the Court that the injunction granted in Suit No. 175 of 1990 continues to be operative. In any view of the matter the petitioner has deliberately not disclosed the final outcome of the aforesaid suit proceedings which were initiated by him in the year 1990. On being insisted upon by the Court that the petitioner must disclose as to what has been the fate of Original Suit No. 175 of 1990, the Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the said suit stands dismissed as of date.
(3.) FROM the record of the present writ petition it is further apparently clear that except paragraph 10 quoted hereinabove the entire writ petition is silent with regard to the fate of the aforesaid suit proceedings nor the final order passed in the aforesaid suit has been annexed along with the writ petition. In the opinion of the Court the outcome of the suit (Original Suit No. 175 of 1990) filed by the petitioner is a material fact which should have been disclosed by the petitioner with all fairness and completely. It is settled law that for invoicing equitable jurisdiction the petitioner must faithfully and fairly disclose all the material facts and any attempt to deliberately conceal material facts is a ground sufficient to refuse exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court is satisfied that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has made an attempt to conceal the material facts from the Hon'ble High Court. In such circumstances this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition at the behest of the petitioner who has deliberately concealed material facts in the present writ petition.;