MC 1847/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. AR Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant (Respon dent No.9). Also heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the opposite parties /w rit petitioners and Mr. S. Khound, learned Standing Counsel for BTAD authorities . The State respondents are represented by Ms. VL Sinha, learned Addl. Sr. Govt . Advocate. 2. This application for recalling of the interim order dated 29/1/2010 pass ed in WP(C)No.289/10, is pressed forward by contending that the writ petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and have suppressed the vital f act that a title suit being T.S.No.285/09 in respect to the very same land was f iled on their behalf, against the applicant’s group as defendant No.1, seeking d eclaration over the suit land. 3. It is submitted by the applicant that the said title suit was filed by f ive persons who are the heads of the families of some of the writ petitioners. The learned counsel pointed out that the plaintiff No.1 is the father of writ pe titioner Nos. 21,63 and 72 and the husband of the writ petitioner No.23. Simila rly, the writ petitioner No.1 is the son of plaintiff No.4. Accordingly, it is submitted that the writ petitioners must be aware of the title suit filed by the heads of their family and yet they did not disclose the same in the writ petiti on. 4. It is further pointed out that by the impugned order dated 5/8/09, the P arbatjhora Rangamati Hill Multipurpose Society (NGO) has been allotted 400 Bigha s of Government land and the said society has not been impleaded as party respon dent in the writ proceedings. 5. The applicant also contends that the status-quo order passed by this Cou rt on 29/1/10 is coming in the way of the Parbatjhora Rangamati Hill Multipurpos e Society (NGO) to develop the allotted land. 6. Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submits that he had no instruction on the title suit stated to have been filed by some of heads of the family members of writ petitioners and accordingly no mention of the T.S. No.285/09 was made in the writ petition. 7. Mr. S. Khound, learned Standing Counsel, BTAD submits that the allotment of the Government land was given to the Parbatjhora Rangamati Hill Multipurpose Society (NGO) for serving a public purpose and the Court’s interim order is aff ecting the same. 8. Having regard to the above and more particularly, non-mentioning of the title suit filed on the same subject matter in the petition, I am of the view th at the writ petitioners cannot be permitted to enjoy the benefit of Court’s inte rim order and accordingly the same is vacated. 9. The misc. case stands allowed accordingly.