1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4827 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 13.01.2011 Tara Chand Rawat and another. ......Petitioners Vs State of Haryana through Financial Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and another. ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: - Mr. Sandeep Panwar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Pankaj Maini, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. Anil Rathee, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Sanjay S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, A.C.J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 7478 of 2010 The application for impleadment of applicants as respondents is allowed. Disposed of. 2 C.M. No. 7477 of 2010 in CWP No. 4827 of 2010 Having considered the application for vacating the interim order dated 17.03.2010 of this Court as made by the respondents No. 3 to 5 in the writ petition the Court has considered it proper to take up the main case for consideration on merits. Accordingly, final orders in the writ petition are being passed. The preliminary question that has to be answered by the Court in the present proceeding is whether resort to the writ remedy made by the writ petitioners by seeking to challenge the vires of Section 22-B of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 is bonafide. The writ petitioners were the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of their rights over the land and for injunction restraining the concerned authority from dispossessing them from the said land. The land in question is the very same land that is involved in the present writ petition. The prayer of the writ petitioners, as plaintiffs, for injunction was refused by the learned trial Court against which they had moved this Court in Civil Revision No. 6116 of 2008. The said Civil Revision application was disposed of on 10.11.2009 whereafter this writ petition was filed on 15.03.2010 seeking to raise the question of vires as noticed above. In the writ petition there is no mention of the earlier proceedings in the suit and the Civil Revision application that had taken place between the parties. It is perhaps on account of the aforesaid omission on the part of the writ petitioners that this Court had passed an interim order dated 17.03.2010 staying the dispossession of the writ petitioners from the 3 land in question. The above facts, in our considered view, would justify a conclusion that the writ petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands and, therefore, they should be held to be not entitled to any relief in the exercise of the highly discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, decline to entertain this writ petition any further. It is accordingly dismissed. However, we do not propose to burden the writ petitioners with any order as to cost. Interim order passed earlier is vacated. (RANJAN GOGOI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 13.01.2011 Amodh