JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the auction notice dated 7.3.2000, Annexure-6 to the writ petition and the auction held in pursuance thereof on 15.3.2000 and all other proceedings in pursuance thereto.
2. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that the father of the petitioner was owner of House Nos. 8 and 8A, Muir Road, Allahabad, 12 Kutchery Road, Allahabad and House No. 1 Sir Suleman Road, Allahabad. He submitted a return under Section 6 of the U. P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation), Act 1976. The competent authority declared 15560.13 sq. metre total land as surplus land out of the aforesaid premises. Out of House Nos. 8 and 8A, Muir Road, Allahabad 11997.68 sq. metre land was declared surplus. Out of House No. 12 Kutchery Road, Allahabad an area of 397.92 sq. metre land was declared surplus and out of land of House No. 1 Sir Suleman Road, Allahabad an area of 3164.53 sq. metre land was declared as surplus. Out of 11997.68 sq. metre land the father of the petitioner sold 11488 sq. metre land to the Prayag Upniveshan Avas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Dariyabad, Allahabad and the State Government by its order dated 19.2.1983 granted exemption under Section 20 (2) of the Act. True copy of the exemption order is Annexure-1 to the writ petition
3. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that after the death of the petitioner's father on 1.6.1998, the petitioner and his brother are exclusive owners of the aforesaid House Nos. 8 and 8A Muir Road, Allahabad. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is alleged that the respondent did not take any proceeding under Section 10 (5) of the Act and did not call the petitioner to vacate the aforementioned surplus land. As regards the portion of the House Nos, 8 and 8A, Muir Road, Allahabad after the sale of its portion to the aforesaid housing society, it is in possession of S. P., Gangapar. Allahabad and it was allotted in his favour on 17.5.1999 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. True copy of the allotment order is Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
4. The U. P. Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation), Act. 1976 was repealed by U. P. Act No. 15 of 1999 w.e.f. 18.3.1999. However Clause 3 of the Repealing Act saved such land in which the possession of the vacant land had already been taken over by the State Government. It is alleged in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that the petitioners have not been dispossessed from any part of the land of the aforesaid House Nos. 8 and 8A, Muir Road, Allahabad and they have not been paid compensation.
5. In paragraph 14 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner has come to know that the respondents have notified the aforesaid property for auction vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition. In paragraph 16 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioners have come to know that the aforesaid property had been auctioned on 15.3.2000. However, it is alleged that the auction purchaser has not been given possession.
6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the A.D.A. In paragraph 4 of the same it is stated that after the father of the petitioner filed a return under Section 6 he did not participate in the proceedings after the notice under Section 8 (3) of the Act and hence an ex parte order dated 30.3.1982 was passed under Section 8 (4). True copy of the order dated 30.3.1982 is Annexure-C.A. 1. Consequently, a final statement under Section 9 of the Act was issued on 25.5.1982 which was duly served on the returnee. Photocopy of the final statement is Annexure-C.A. 2 to the counter-affidavit. An appeal being Appeal No. 20/82 was filed by the returnee which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the competent authority for deciding the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the returnee. True copy of the order of the District Judge, Allahabad is Annexure-C.A. 3. Consequently, an objection dated 21.9.1984 was filed which was rejected vide letter dated 22.2.1986 and the order dated 30.3.1982 passed under Section 8 (4) of the Act was confirmed. True copy of the objection and order dated 21.9.1984 and the order dated 22.2.1986 are Annexures-C.A. 4 and C.A. 5 to the counter-affidavit.
7. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.2.1986 the returnee filed an application dated 24.2.1986 for recalling of the order dated 22.2.1986 praying for a decision on merits. True copy of the application dated 24.2.1986 is Annexure-C.A. 6. This application dated 24.2.1986 was dismissed in default and the order dated 20.2.1986 was confirmed vide order dated 23.4.1986. True copy of the order dated 23.4.1986 confirming the order dated 20.2.1986 and rejecting the application dated 18.4.1986 and 31.3.1987 is Annexure-C.A. 7. Yet another application was moved by the returnee on 1.6.1987 for recall of the order dated 23.4.1986 and this application was decided on 11.3.1988 by which order dated 23.5.1987 was recalled on 17.3.1988 was fixed for hearing. True copy of the application dated 1.6.1987 and order dated 11.3.1988 are Annexures-C.A. 8 and C.A. 9 to the counter-affidavit.
8. Several dates were fixed after 11.3.1988 and ultimately because of the non-participation and - non-cooperative attitude of the petitioner, the matter was decided again ex parte on 29.9.1995 whereby the initial order dated 30.3.1982 was adopted as the order under Section 8 (4) of the Act. True copy of the order dated 29.9.1995 is Annexure-C.A. 10. Thereafter a notification under Section 10 (3) was issued on 1.2.1996 vide Annexure-C.A. 11. In consequence to the notification published on 15.6.1996 under Section 10 (3) of the Act a notice was issued on 20.2.1997 vide Annexure-C.A. 12 to the counter-affidavit. The petitioner moved an application on 10.8.1998 for recall of the earlier orders under Section 8 (4) vide Annexure-C.A. 13. The competent authority disposed of the said application by order dated 10.3.1999 vide Annexure-14 to the counter-affidavit and the surplus land was redetermined. This order dated 18.3.1999 was never challenged and has thus become final. This order dated 10.3.1999 modified the earlier order to a certain extent and a notification under Section 10 (3) of the Act was published and as a result surplus land was declared which remained vested in the State of 11997.68 sq. metre out of the total property of the returnee which was confined to the two premises of the returnee i.e,, 8 and 8-A, Muir Road, Allahabad. So far as the other premises are concerned, these were not declared vacant and they are still available to the petitioners.
9. In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioners are not in possession of the land in question. In paragraph 12 it is stated that the vacant possession of the portion had already been taken and the same had been auctioned and possession had already been taken over by the auction purchaser.
10. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and we have perused the same. In paragraph 3 of the same it is stated that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have already Invested huge amount in the purchase of the land in dispute. They have duly purchased the land in question in a legal and bona fide manner. In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the land in question has already been declared surplus vide order dated 10.3.1999, Annexure-C.A. 1. In paragraph 8 it is stated that the vacant part of the premises was put to auction by the A.D.A. and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 made their bids which was the highest bid and their bid was accepted. Subsequently, they deposited 25% of the total bid amount, i.e., 2.25,000 which was duly accepted by the Secretary, A.D.A. vide order dated 15.3.2000 Annexure-C.A. 2. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were directed to deposit the balance of 75% and that too was deposited well within time i.e., before 30.3.2000. Subsequently, the auction was confirmed in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 vide order dated 10.4.2000 Annexure-C.A. 4.
11. In paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the possession had already been given to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and the auction has been confirmed but these relevant facts was suppressed by the petitioner while filing the writ petition and by such suppression the petitioner obtained the interim order dated 1.5.2000. The interim order was obtained without arraying respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as parties.
12. In paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner moved a highly belated application dated 7.8.1998 for recalling the order dated 29.9.1995. The competent authority allowed the said application by order dated 10.3.1999. This order has become final and never been challenged in any competent court of law. In paragraph 24, it is stated that possession has already been taken of the land in question by A.D.A. and it has been given to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. In paragraph 30, it is stated that the auction was confirmed on 10.4.2000 and possession was given thereafter to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
13. We have carefully perused the affidavits in this case and heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
14. It is evident from a perusal of Annexure-C.A. 1-A of the counter-affidavit of Lalta Prasad that public auction of the surplus land in question had already been held by the A.D.A. on 15.3.2000 which was confirmed on 10.4.2000 vide Annexure-C.A. 3 and the possession had been given to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as is evident from the certificate of possession, copy of which is Annexure-C.A. 4.
15. Thus, it is evident that the possession had been with respondent Nos. 5 and 6 since 10.4.2000 and it has wrongly been alleged by the petitioners that they are still in possession.
16. In our opinion, the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands as he has suppressed very relevant facts in this petition as stated in paragraphs 13, 18 and 24 of the counter-affidavit of Lalta Prasad. In our opinion, this concealment of material facts was done by the petitioner for obtaining the interim order dated 1.5.2000 of this Court. In our opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone namely that the petitioner has not come with clean hands as he has suppressed material facts.
17. Writ Jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction. One of the grounds for refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 is that the petitioner has not come with clean hands.
18. In Asiatic Engineering Co. v. Achhru Ram, AIR 1951 All 746 (para 51) a Full Bench of this Court observed :
"In our opinion, the salutary principle laid down in the cases quoted above should appropriately be applied by courts in our country when parties seek the aid of the extraordinary powers granted to the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. A person obtaining an ex parte order or a rule nisi by means of a petition for exercise of the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution must come with clean hands, must not suppress any relevant facts from the Court, must refrain from making misleading statements and from giving incorrect information to the Court. Courts, for their own protection, should insist that persons Invoking these extraordinary powers should not attempt, in any manner, to misuse this valuable right by obtaining ex parte orders by suppression, misrepresentation or misstatement of facts. Applying this principle to the present case, we feel that, in this case, the petitioner company has disentitled itself to ask for a writ of prohibition by material suppressions, misrepresentations and misleading statements which have been found by us above."
19. In the present case, the petitioner suppressed and concealed the material facts in this writ petition that possession of the land had been taken by the State and handed over to the auction purchasers (respondent Nos. 5 and 6), as is evident from the certificate of possession, copy of which is Annexure-C.A. 4 to the counter-affidavit. He also suppressed the fact of the auction by the A.D.A. on 15.3.2000 and of its confirmation on 10.4.2000. The affidavit in support of the writ petition was sworn on 27.4-2000, and it is not possible for us to believe that the petitioner did not know of the above facts. Yet the petitioner has falsely stated in paragraphs 12 and 18 of the writ petition that they are in possession. There is no mention in the writ petition of the auction of the land in dispute. It is, therefore, evident to us that the petitioner suppressed all these material facts in order to obtain the interim order of the Court dated 1.5.2000.
20. This practice of suppressing material facts to obtain interim orders from this Court has assumed colossal dimensions. This Court has been too indulgent to this malpractice, and the result has been that a large number of petitions are being filed in the Court concealing and suppressing relevant and material facts only to obtain interim orders, and knowing that because of the heavy pendency of cases in the Court stay vacation applications are not taken up for hearing for years. The only way to stop this malpractice is to dismiss such writ petitions on the ground that the petitioner has not come with clean hands, without going into the merits. Writ jurisdiction is equity jurisdiction, and he who seeks equity must come with clean hands.
21. Since in this case the petitioner has not come with clean hands as he has suppressed material and relevant facts we dismiss this writ petition on this ground without going into the merits. Interim order is vacated.