IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2625 of 2010 1. BIPIN PRASAD S/O LATE RAMANAD PRASAD R/O VILL.- BARITOLA, P.S.- MUFFASIL (BETTIAH), DISTT.- W. CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COLLECTOR (D.D.C.) WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BETTIAH, SADAR 6. THE ANCHALADHIKARI BETTIAH WEST CHAMPARAN 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN 8. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER DISTRICT BOARD, BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN 9. AMAR KISHOR PRASAD S/O LATE BINDHWASIN PRASAD R/O VILL.- BARITOLA, P.S.- MUFFASSIL (BETTIAH), DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN ----------- 02. 03.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the Zila Parishad, Bettiah, West Champaran. Respondent no.9 was granted a settlement by the Zila Parishad. He alleged obstruction in his ingress and egress. The Zila Parishad attributed it to encroachment by the petitioner on the lands of the Zila Parishad. Orders have been passed for eviction as an encroacher. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier in the year 1998 itself he had filed a Suit against the Zila Parishad, which is still pending. If a Title Suit was pending between the parties, the Zila Parishad could not have declared the petitioner as an encroacher insofar as the Zila Parishad itself is concerned. Learned counsel for the State from the counter affidavit submits that the petitioner had sought the relief of 2 injunction in Title Suit No. 09 of 1998 which was rejected on 4.5.2000. The petitioner did not question the same and it attained finality. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly acknowledges that the aforesaid facts with regard to the injunction application are correct. The writ petition has been filed in the year 2010, strenuously relying on the pendency of Title Suit No. 09 of 1998 to question the legal justification for the impugned order in Encroachment Case No. 18 of 2007-08. But the petitioner has chosen not to make disclosure with regard to the rejection of the injunction application as far back as 2000 and that it had attained finality. Surely, the rejection of the prayer for injunction was a very relevant fact in light of the encroachment proceedings. Fairness on part of the petitioner demanded that he should have made full disclosure and complete of the true facts to this Court, leaving the final conclusion to the Court. The law stands well settled that if a person approaches the writ Court with unclean hands and which also include suppression of relevant materials, the writ Court shall decline to interfere on its jurisdiction. In (2010) 4 SCC 728 (Oswal Fats and Oils Ltd. V. Commr. (Admn) it has been held as follows at paragraph-20:- “20. It is settled law that a person who approaches the court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing 3 on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. In other words, he owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and refrain from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. If he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person." The writ application is dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J. )