IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 381 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.12.2010. Sandeep Aggarwal …Petitioner. Versus Mohit Singh and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the petitioner: Mr. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Arush Malhotra, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.08.2010 whereby application filed by the respondent-workman under Order 6 Rule 17 was allowed. 2. The respondent-workman filed a petition under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act on 25.11.2009 and alongwith the application petitioner also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. At that time only two respondents were arrayed in the petition, namely, M/s Ayushi Steel Industry Tokki and Shri Sandeep Aggarwal, its Managing Director. The workman thereafter filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 in which he 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 stated that he had come to know after obtaining information under the Right to Information Act that M/s Ayushi Steel Industry Tokki is the proprietorship concerned of Smt. Anju Aggarwal wife of Tarsem Aggarwal. This application was allowed by the impugned order. 3. The main challenge to the order is that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to file reply to this application. Normally, such an opportunity should be given but I find from the order sheet that even the counsel representing the present petitioner had not made any request for giving time to file reply. I also find that no prejudice is being caused to the petitioner. In case, Anju Aggarwal is not the owner of the firm, she can in her reply to the claim petition state that she is not the owner. How, the petitioner Sandeep Aggarwal is adversely affected by the order is not clear. 4. Surprisingly, in this petition not a word has been stated as to what is the relationship between Sandeep Aggarwal and Anju Aggarwal. Similarly, there is not a whisper as to what is status of M/s Ayushi Steel Industry Tokki and what is its relationship with Anju Aggarwal. A petitioner who comes to this Court under Article 227 of the 3 Constitution of India must come with clean hands and I find that by withholding such information which should have been in the custody of the petitioner he has disentitled himself from any relief. The petition is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. 5. The Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation is further directed to dispose of the petition as early as possible but in any event not later than 30th June, 2011. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner on 4th January, 2011. 14th December, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge