IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.87 of 2010 1. Sami Ahmad Khan S/O Md. Yasin Ahmad Khan R/O Vill.- Satjora, P.S.- Panapur, Distt.- Saran, At Present Posted As Sub-Inspector Of Police, Head Quarter, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director General Of Police (Head Quarter) Bihar, Patna, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, (Incharge Personnel) Bihar, Patna, Old Secretariat, Patna 4. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police (Head Quarter), Bihar, Patna ----------- 3. 25.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks the benefit for grant of second A.C.P. from 28.6.1997 contrary to that granted to him from 16.5.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the eligibility for A.C.P. arose in 1997 a departmental proceeding initiated in 2002 leading to punishment cannot affect the claim. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit which was served on the counsel for the petitioner on 4.11.2010. No rejoinder to the same has been filed till date. The counter affidavit states at Paragraphs 5 and 6 that the petitioner was subjected to three separate departmental proceedings in the years 1997, 2000 and 2002. He has been imposed punishment in each of them. 2 Though he was eligible for second A.C.P. from 9.8.1999, because of the operation of the punishments it could not be granted to him before 16.5.2005. If the petitioner was subjected to departmental proceeding and punishment imposed no one knew the fact better then him. It was his duty to place all necessary facts before the Court and not to withhold any fact integral to the claims. The decision that would follow in law is an entirely different matter. The writ Court exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution can refuse relief to a litigant merely for the reason that he may have come to the Court with unclean hands and did not disclose all necessary facts and materials as held in (2007) 8 SCC 449 (Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India) at Paragraph-33 as follows:-: “33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court 3 without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.” At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment to seek instructions and file a rejoinder to the counter affidavit. The Court is not persuaded to do so at this belated stage as it is satisfied that the petitioner has had more than reasonable time to do so. Whether it be the petitioner or the respondents. They cannot have the luxury of litigation at their leisure. The pace of the litigation shall be controlled by the Court and not by the parties. While the Court shall not ride roughshod over the rights of the parties to present their case equally inexplicable delay on their part by lack of vigilant for protection of their own interest shall leave them to bear their own burden. The Superme Court has observed in (2011) 4 SCC 296 as follows:- “9. ……..the Courts are over burdened and no litigant should misuse the forum of the Court merely because litigation is a luxury for him…..” 4 The era of luxury litigation at leisurely pace is over. The Courts shall stand for those and preserve time for them who are vigilant and seek timely justice. Whether it be the question of withholding necessary facts from the Court or the explanation furnished by the respondents in the counter affidavit, the Court in the entirety finds no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)