1 SBCW NO. 5719/2003 Darvesh Goyal Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5719/2003 Darvesh Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another ......... Date of Order : 17/03/2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Kishan Bansal, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S.Godara on behalf of Mr. V.K.Mathur, for the respondents. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition, the order Annex.2 dated 27.9.2003 passed by the respondent has been challenged by the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents invited my attention to para 7 of the writ petition wherein the petitioner stated that the order dated 27.9.2003 has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without holding an enquiry nor any charge sheet has been served to the petitioner so far. 2 SBCW NO. 5719/2003 Darvesh Goyal Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. A reply has been filed by the respondents stating therein that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 26th July, 2003 and thereafter a preliminary enquiry was conducted and the inquiry officer submitted its report on 19th September, 2003 holding the petitioner responsible for the losses occurred to the department, placing therewith the copies of show cause notice, inquiry report etc. In the rejoinder to the reply, this fact has been admitted by the petitioner. Thus, obviously the petitioner has made an attempt to mislead the Court by stating on Oath that no opportunity of hearing was given and without any inquiry and charge sheet, the penalty of recovery has been imposed. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Kaboolchand Vs. Deputy Custodian, Alwar, 1952 RLW, 160 wherein the Division Bench held that it is necessary that the parties who come to the High Court and ask it to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, should place full and true facts before it and should not word the application or affidavit in such a way as to create a completely misleading picture of the facts leading to the making of the application in order to deceive the Court in passing interim orders in their 3 SBCW NO. 5719/2003 Darvesh Goyal Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. favour and on that premises it was held that the applicant therein had disentitled himself from getting any writ, order or direction in his favour. In K.D.Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors., JT 2008 (8) SC 57, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :- “The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.” In Daya Ram Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. & Anr., 2003 (1) WLC (Raj.) 197, the Division Bench of this Court held that in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution which are initiated for attracting the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court, it is utmost important and necessary that the petitioner should come forward with clean hands. This Court sitting under extraordinary equitable jurisdiction also cannot encourage the idea that a person is entitled to adopt 4 SBCW NO. 5719/2003 Darvesh Goyal Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. dubious, dishonest or fraudulent means and make false averments or conceal the material facts while submitting a writ petition in this Court and when the other side has exposed this material concealment of the facts made by the petitioner by putting the necessary facts before the court, it is not proper to allow the petitioner to make his submissions on the merits of the case. In Welcom Hotel and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. 1983 (4) SCC 575, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that suppression of material facts disentitles the petitioner to any relief at the hands of the Court. Keeping in view, the decisions referred herein above, in my view, the petitioner had made an incorrect statement in para No.7 of the writ petition and therefore, on this count alone, he is not entitled to be heard on merit of the case. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp