- (1.) Let the affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record. The writ petitioner has approached this Court essentially challenging a memo dated 7th October, 2015, issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kolkata Region, whereby the petitioner was directed to follow the provisions of section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the Bank Manager, Lake Town Branch had raised objection in writing on 17th March, 2015. At the time of hearing of the matter, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State draws this Court's attention to annexure P-3 at page 29 of the writ petition, being a letter from the petitioner dated 12th March, 2015, addressed to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Lake Town Branch. A perusal of the said letter reveals that the petitioner requested the bank authorities to issue necessary "no objection certificate" to help him get the route permit renewed. In the said letter, the petitioner also assured the bank that henceforth he would pay EMIs regularly. The learned advocate for the State has, thereafter, drawn this Court's attention to the petitioner's letter dated 30th May, 2015, which refers to the State Bank of India, Lake Town Branch's reply dated 17th March, 2015. The learned advocate for the State submits that the petitioner has suppressed this letter dated 17th March, 2015, issued by the State Bank of India, Lake Town Branch, which is the letter that has been referred to in the impugned memo dated 7th October, 2015, issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kolkata Region.
(2.) Undoubtedly, the petitioner has approached this Court suppressing the contents of the letter dated 17th March, 2015, which he had duly received as is apparent from the petitioner's own letter dated 30th May, 2015, addressed to the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Lake Town Branch. In paragraph 23 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated as follows:- "That this application is made bonafide and for the interest of justice". Although the petitioner has stated that the application was made bona fide, it is palpable evident that there has been suppression of material facts which makes the bona fides of the writ petitioner, suspect. A person who approaches this Court invoking its high prerogative Constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, essentially seeks relief which is discretionary in nature. For such discretionary relief to be granted, the petitioner has to demonstrate unimpeachable bona fides. This is precisely why a writ petitioner requires to make in his/her petition, a specific averment to the effect that the application is made bona fide and for the ends of justice. In this context, one may take notice of a judgment of this Court in Tirthankar Ghosh v. The Supreintendent (SIV), Service Tax II Kolkata & Ors., 2016 2 WBLR 472 . As observed hereinbefore, there cannot be any manner of doubt whatsoever that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the writ petition was not made bona fide. He has approached this Court without stating the facts candidly or with a "clean breast" and therefore cannot hold a writ of the Court with "soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction.
(3.) If the writ petitioner does not disclose all material facts fairly and truly, but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the Rule NISI and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such a writ petition requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. In this context, one may take notice of a decision rendered the Bench in King R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, 1917 1 KB 486 (CA). The Supreme Court, in at least three judgments rendered in Prestige Lights Ltd. vs. State Bank of India, 2007 8 SCC 449 ; K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited, 2008 12 SCC 481 and Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2010 2 SCC 114 , has categorically observed to the effect that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that a person while approaching the writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all the relevant material facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and only then seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant or material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his/her petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to summarily dismissed with costs and is accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at 50 G.Ms. to be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee, Calcutta, within a week from date. List this matter a fortnight hence only for the purpose of ensuring compliance of the order of payment of cost.;