S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8001/2008 M/s. Sujan Cotton & Oil Unit Vs. Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. And Ors. Date of order : 23.03.2009 HON'BLE MR.GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS,J. Mr. A.K. Acharya, for the petitioner. Mr. Paramveer Singh, for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Paramveer Singh at the commencement of arguments submits that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has concealed material fact from the knowledge of this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that earlier, before filing this writ petition, writ petition was preferred by the petitioner for the same cause of action and the said writ petition was registered as S.B.C.W.Pet. No.1056/2003, which was decided on 9.5.2003 by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and following order was passed :- "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1056/2003 Date : 09.05.2003 Hon'ble Mr.B. Prasad, J. Mr. Dinesh Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. Sangeet Lodha, for the respondents. ------- Heard. On 12th March, 2003 when the petition was taken up for admission, it was given out by the petitioner that he will deposit a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-. Learned counsel for the respondents states that such deposit has not been made. Non-deposit of the amount assured to the Court shows the conduct of the petitioner that the petitioner is not serious to make re- payment. Respondent Bank is only selling the mortgage property in terms of the contract entered into by the petitioner with the Bank that on failure of re-repayment of loan, respondent Bank will be entitled to auction for property mortgaged with it. The Bank is only exercising its option under the contract to sell the mortgage property. Such an option is available under the contract. When the contract has been entered into in between the parties with open understanding, no interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is called for. More particularly, when the petitioner has acted in a fashion which is against his own assurance. Thus, not only that he has violated the contract entered between it and the Bank, but it has violated the undertaking given to this court also. That being the position, the petitioner dis-entitles itself from any indulgence of this court. The writ petition having no force is hereby dismissed." I have perused the pleadings of this case, it is very strange that by way of filing second writ petition, the petitioner has concealed material fact from the knowledge of this Court that earlier this Court has refused to interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this matter, which is clear from the aforesaid order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS)J. Rm/