HIGHGOURTOFJUDICATUREGHHAmSGARH:BILASPUR CORAM: HON'BLESHRIS.R.NAYAK,CJ. HON'BLE SHRI V.K.SHRIVASTAVA, J. uo Petitioner Respbndents ^ y :& Writ Petition (PIUNo.5861 of2006 Subhash Charidra Daharia, aged about 47 years, son of Shri Manmohan, Oecupation agriculturjst (Ex-Sarpanch - Godhi, Korba) resident of post Gpdhi, Via Rajgamarg Colliery, Korba.DtStt.Korba (CG). Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Local Self Govemment,Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Mantralay,Raipur (CG). 2. The State of Ghhatti^arh, through - Secretary, Department of Revenue, Dau KalyanSinghBhawan,Raipyr(CG). 3. The Secretary, Departmerit of Generat Admiriistration, 13au Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4. The Coltector, DistrictKorba(CG). 5. The Deputy Director, Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh, Korba, Distt.Korba (Chhattisgarh) 8. Nagar Paljl'c Nigam - Korba, through - Its Commissioner, Distt. Korba (CG). 7. The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division-Korba, Distt. Korba (CG) 8. South Eastem Coalfields Limited, Korba, through - Its Chief Geheral Manager, Korba Area, Distt.Korba (CG) 9. Shristhi Institute of Medical Science and Research Cetttre (A Sociefy Registered under the Society RegistrJkaran Adhiniyam) near Petrol Pump, Gramin Bahk Building, Niharika Talkies Road, Kprtaa, ^roygh - its Director, ^ Pandey, resident of Purani Basti, Rani Road,Korba,DiStt.Korba(CG). 10. Nanki Ram Kahwar, aged about not known, son of Patram Kanwar, occupation- Politician (At present MiniSter in the Cabinet of Chbattisgarh Goyemn-ient), Resident of Rani Road, Korba, Djstf. Korba (GG). 11. Kashi Prasad Pandey.aged about not kriown, son <rf Surya Bten^^^^^^^^P^ Pandey, occupation - agriculturist resident ofVill.Kudurmal,Kort)a;DisU.Korba(CG). .< ^ 12, Shakuntata Kanwar, aged not known, wife of Shri Nanki Ram Kariwar, resident of Purani Basti Rani Road, Korba, Distt. Koi-ba (Chhattisgarh) 13. Devendra Kumar Pandey, aged about not knowh, son 6f Shri Kashi Prasad Pandey, resident of Purani Basti, Rani Road, Korba.Distt. Korba (GG) 14. Dr. B.L. Pandey,aged about not known, son of Shri Anant Ram Pandey, occupation, Medieal.Rrofession, Resident of01dBusStand,Korba,Distt.Korba(CG) 15. Vaibhav Kurriar Tnvari, aged about not known.son of Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, occupation SenflCe, resident of Quarter N0.528/3/B, Balco, Korba, Distt. Korba (CG) 16.1-alit Kumar Pandey, aged about not known, son of Kashi Prasad Pandey, occypation business, resident of village Kudurmal, Korba, Distt. Korba (CG). 17. Ashj Shukla, aged about notknown.son of Shri J.P. Shukla, occupation service, residentofBilapsur,Distt.Bilaspur(CG). 18. Devnath Rathia, aged about not known, son of Shri Ramnath Rathia, occupation agriculturist, resident of Nawagarh, Korba, Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh) 19. Ashok Kumar Tiwarj, aged about Tiot known, son of Shri Goyal Prasad Tiwari, occupation service, resident of village Mangla.Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur(CG) Ul Present:- Shri Prashant Jayaswal, Sr. Advocate withShri S. Jayaswal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, Addl. Advocate General for the State and its authorities. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.6. Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Shri A.K. Yadav, counsel for respondent No.8 ShriV.G. Tamaskar.counselforrespondents N0.9&13. None forotherrespondents. ORAI.ORDER (Dated 12tn December,2006) The following oral order of the Court was passed by S.R.Nayak,CJ. : l^ :{€ ^An extent 6f8.92 acres of land comprised in survey Nos.296/4 and 296^situated:ih yitlageKharmora and Rasdi, Dist.Korba, was granted in favour of 9th responcfent-tnstitute by theGovemment of Chhatfegarh vide its order dated 22-04-2006. The petitioner herein claiming to be a pm bono publicg has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the ConstitutiQri of India as a Public Interest .l..itigation (for short "the PIL") to espouse public interest. The allegation is that the grant madeby the State Govemment of Chhattisgarh in^avouFDftheL9"1respondent-lnstitute suffers from infraction ofstatutory rules govemingthe grant. Atthe time of hearing, it was brought to our notice by learned counsel for the parties that the petltioner himself had applied for grant of one acre of land in the above sun/ey numbers and hisapplication was rejected before the application of9UI respondent-lnstitutewas considered and the subject land was granted in its favour. The correctness of the information gh/en to us by learned Additionat Advocate General appearing forthe State and its authorities and the learned counsel appearing for the 9* Fespondent-lnstitute; is not denied by the leamed counsel for the petitioner. On theother hand, learned counsel for the petitioner in fairness suBmitted that it was a fact that the petitioner hadapplied for grant of one acre of land in the aforementioned survey numbers, but, his application was rejected well before the Government of Chhattisgarh considered the application of 9th respondent-lnstitute and granted the land in its favour videorderdated 22-04-2006. The facts disclosed now before us would show unmistakably thatthe petitioner has not come to this Court as a pm fco(»opy&/fcofoespousethecauseofpublic interest, but, indirectlyto seek his^owriinterest.: .& \- ^A Gowri Bethat as it may.the factthatthe petitioner hadapplied for grantof one acreof land in theabove survey numbers and his application was rejected by the competent authority, is quite euriously and for the reasons bestknown to the petitioner, not disclosed in thewrit petition. Itwas well settled that a person, who approaches this Court under Article226 ofthe Constitution, invoking equteble jurisdiction of this Gourt, is expected to disclose all material and relevant factsand come with ctean hands.and if the Court finds that the relevant and material facts are withheld or suppressed bysuchan applicant, that ground itselfisa justification for the Court to refuse the relief. There is no need for us to dilate on the law governing^ under what circumstances the court would be justifled to dismiss writ applications filed by parties or interested persons as PILs. In a recent judgment dated 18' September, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 1062 of 2004 (AmitSingh Walia & Another vs. The State of Chhattisgarh SOthers), we had oceasion to deal with all important case lav on thepoint. , In the circumstance, we dismiss this writ petition with Costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) payable to the Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Servtees Committee, within a period of ten days from today. The office is directed toappenda ceri:ified copy ofthe order passed in the case of AmitSingh Walia (supra) white issuing certified copy of this order at the eosts ofthe petitipner forthe certified copy. ^ty Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V^.Stoivastava Judge