WP(C) 3450/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Heard Mr. K. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. The petitioner claiming himself as the only son of his father Late Liaka t Ali, has filed the instant writ petition for appointment on compassionate grou nd. His father Late Liakat Ali died in harness on 14.2.2003. He was Police Cons table working under the Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated thus :- 2. That the petitioner begs to state that the father of the petitioner was a police constable working under the Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi. The f ather of the petitioner died in harness on 14.2.2003 leaving behind the petition er (son), one daughter and wife and mother. If we go by the above statement, the petitioner is the only son of his father, w ho left behind him along with one daughter and his wife. No where in the writ pe tition, there is any statement that the deceased father had another wife and oth er children. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the aforesaid statement made in paragraph-2 of the writ petition has been denied as follows :- 3. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 2 of the writ petit ion, the deponent states that Lt. Liakat Ali the father of the petitioner, (Shri Kamrul Islam), was a police constable under the Superintendent of Police, Haila kandi. The petitioner’s father, Liakat Ali passed away on 14.02.2003 (while in s ervice) leaving behind two wives, four daughters and a son instead of a wife, a daughter and a son as per record available in the office, centering to the claim by the petitioner that his father left behind a wife, a daughter and a son as e vident from the letter No.6/GOP No.SF 26370. Thus, according to the above statement of the affidavit-in-opposition, the fathe r of the petitioner Late Liakat Ali had 2 (two) wives, 4 (four) daughters and a son (the petitioner), about which there is no whisper in the writ petition. The petitioner has not denied such stand of the respondents in their counter affidav it by filing any rejoinder affidavit. The affidavit-in-opposition was filed on 30.10.2009. During the course of hearing, on being pointed out the above aspect of the matte r, Mr. K. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that the fathe r of the petitioner had two wives and other children. However, his submission is that none else is eligible for compassionate appointment except the petitioner. The Annexure-A is a communication to the mother of the petitioner in respect of certain payment pertaining to services of her husband under the respondents in w hich, there is mention of 7 (seven) legal heirs of Late Liakat Ali including the petitioner. Thus, the writ petition has been filed with suppression of material fact so as to claim compassionate appointment by projecting that the petitioner along with his sister and mother are the only legal heirs of Late Liakat Ali. T he petitioner having not come with clean hands and there being suppression of ma terial fact, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, which I accordingly do . This being a case of suppression of material fact, I am of the considered opinio n that it is a fit case for awarding cost. Accordingly, while dismissing the wri t petition, a cost of Rs.2,500/- is imposed on the petitioner, which the Registr y shall realize from him in accordance with the High Court Rules and deposit wit h the High Court Mediation Centre. It is further directed that the respondents s hall not process the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Ms R. Chakraborty, learned State counsel takes note of this order and shall comm unicate to the respondents. Let a copy of this order be furnished to her for her necessary follow up action.