IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 557 of 2006 Date of Decision: 26.9.2011 Yashwant Singh …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. & others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.C. Vemra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. AG with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. AG for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Advocate, for respondents No. 5 and 7. Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Deepak Gupta, J(Oral). 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of following amongst other reliefs:- “i) That the act and conduct on the part of the respondents is illegal and unjust and arbitrary to the provisions of Town and Country Planning Act 1977. ii) That respondents No. 2 and 3 approved the building plans contrary to the provisions of Section 7 of the H.P. Town and Country 2 Planning Act 1977 and Rules, which deserves to be interfered with by this Hon’ble Court. iii) That the respondents have ignored the essential amenities i.e. providing of passage, street light etc. to the people while sanctioning the plans and did not perform their function as is proved under Section 70 of the Act.” 2. In reply filed by respondents No. 5 and 7, it is stated that the petitioner alongwith one Shri Rajeshwar had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against Smt. Babita for grant of similar relief. In that suit the relief prayed was as follows:- “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs may kindly decree and the defendant may kindly be restrained from encroaching upon the suit land i.e. on Khasra no. 903/635/283 Khata Khatoni no. 110/131 as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95 at Muhal Malyana Tehsil and District Shimla vide sale deed dated 28th April 2000.” 3. Alongwith that suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed, which was dismissed on 23.9.2005 vide detailed order passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Court No.(4), Shimla. Thereafter the suit itself was dismissed in default on 20.12.2006. Thereafter the present petition was filed on 4th July, 2006 and in the petition no reference has been made to the suit and in fact in para 14 of the petition it is stated as follows:- “14. That the petitioner has no other alternative or efficacious remedy available 3 except to approach this Hon’ble Court. Section 83 of the Act debars the petitioner to institute any suit or initiate any proceedings in the Court against the respondents.” 4. A person who approaches the Court seeking equitable relief under the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court must approach the Court with clean hands. The petitioner had filed the suit and therefore a duty was cast upon him to have informed this Court about the filing of the suit and the subsequent dismissal thereof. In any event in my view the petition should be rejected only on this ground with liberty however, reserved to the petitioner to seek his any other remedy available to him in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. September 26, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (vt) Judge.