IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.576 of 2008 HADESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA @HIRDESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA & ORS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent nos. 2,5 & 7 : Ravindra Kumar Priyadarshi, Advocate. ----- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal -------- Dated, the 31st July, 2008. We heard the counsel for the appellants and we are pained to observe that an incorrect statement has been made before us that concerning the petitioners in the earlier petition (C.W.J.C. No. 7753 of 1991), the direction was issued to the respondents to consider their case and make appointment. That the present appellant no. 1 was petitioner no. 8 and the appellant nos. 2 and 3 were petitioner nos. 21 and 7 in the writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 7753 of 1991) is apparent from the memo of writ petition handed over by the counsel for the appellants which is marked „X‟ for identification purpose. The copy of the writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 7753 of 1991) marked „X‟ shall be kept on record of this appeal. - 2 - 2. In the order dated 15th September, 1992 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7753 of 1991, the present appellants case who were amongst petitioner nos. 6 to 21 therein, was negated by the Division Bench. This is what the Division Bench observed in the said order: “We have perused the order and we do not find any justification to interfere with the same in so far as it considered petitioner nos. 6 to 26.” 3. The appellants having failed in the earlier writ petition, had no justification to approach the court again. Seen thus, the Single Judge cannot be said to have erred in dismissing the writ petition vide order dated 14th May, 2008. The restoration application also cannot be said to have been wrongly rejected. 4. It needs to emphasize that a party invoking high prerogative writ jurisdiction is required to come to court with clean hands and disclose all necessary facts; more so, particularly, with regard to the previous litigation initiated by such petitioner. In the present case, the appellants have not come to the court with clean hands. They conveniently avoided making specific statements in the appeal that the earlier writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 7753 of 1991) as regards them, was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. 5. We are, thus, satisfied that this L.P.A., even if we condone the delay in filing the appeal, does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed accordingly. - 3 - 6. This disposes of application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 4518 of 2008) as well. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/