IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 1620 OF 1995 WRIT PETITION NO. 1620 OF 1995 WRIT PETITION NO. 1620 OF 1995 Proposed Lakshmi Mahila Unnati Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Sanstha and another. ... Petitioners. V/s. State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. P.D.Dalvi for the petitioners. S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 22nd July 2008. DATED: 22nd July 2008. DATED: 22nd July 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order/intimation dated 22nd September, 1994 permitting the proposed respondent No.3 Society to open bank account for being registered as co-operative society pursuant to the Government Circular dated 12th September, 1994 incorporated at Exh."A", page-11 of the petition. 3. In para-5 of the petition, a specific allegation is made against respondent No.3 that as per the information obtained the antedated order was passed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3. The reference is made to the zerox copy of the order, said to be available with the petitioner, showing overwriting and conversion of the date from 22.9.94 to 27.9.94. On being asked to produce the zerox copy, learned counsel for the petitioner expressed his inability to produce the same. As such, the statement made in the petition turned out to be the false and misleading statement. In that view of the matter, petition is liable to be dismissed for having made false and misleading statement to seek favourable order. Such a petition is liable to be thrown out in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853; wherein the Apex Court has observed as under: " The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party." It is, therefore, not necessary to consider the petition on merits. 4. In the result, petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to cost. *****