Ajimul Hasan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Awas Evam Shahri Niyojan Lko. And 4 Others

AFR
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 10302 of 2026
Ajimul Hasan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Awas Evam
Shahri Niyojan Lko. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devendra Kumar, Aziza Khan,
Ishwar Dutt Shukla, Sandeep Kumar
Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 3
HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Instructions filed today in Court by the State are taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and
Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of the State.
3. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
wherein the writ petitioner has made the following main prayers:-
"a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing the impugned order dated 25.07.2025 passed by
Principal Secretary, Awas Evam Shahri Niyojan, U.P., Lucknow,
contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.
b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding thereby directing the opposite parties, specially
opposite party no.5 to stop the illegal construction of petitioner's
land (Nazool land), during pendency of the present writ petition, in
the interest of justice.
c. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding thereby directing the opp. party no.2 to consider and
decide the representation dated 22.08.2026 with a speaking and
reasoned order, contained as Annexure No.6 to this writ petition, in
the interest of justice."

WRIC No. 10302 of 2026
2
4. A preliminary objection has been raised regarding the suppression
of material facts by the petitioner. It has been brought to the notice of
the Court that the petitioner was arrayed as a respondent No.7 in
another writ petition, bearing Writ Petition No.26481 (MB) of 2021 in
re: Smt. Mamta Mishra and others vs. State of U.P. and others ,
concerning the same subject matter. However, the petitioner has
neither disclosed the particulars of the said writ petition nor brought
the order passed therein to the notice of this Court. The present writ
petition has, thus, been filed without disclosing material facts having a
direct bearing on the controversy involved.
5. The law is well settled that a person invoking the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
is under an obligation to make a full and fair disclosure of all material
facts. A litigant seeking equitable and discretionary relief must
approach the Court with clean hands and must not suppress material
facts, make misleading statements, or furnish incorrect information.
Suppression of material facts, particularly those relating to
proceedings concerning the same subject matter, disentitles a litigant
from claiming relief under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this
Court.
6. In The Asiatic Engineering Company vs. Achhru Ram and
others , reported in 1951 SCC OnLine All 60 , a Full Bench of this
Court emphasized the necessity of full and truthful disclosure by a
party invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The relevant observations are
delineated below:-
"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 powders 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

WRIC No. 10302 of 2026
3
this valuable right by obtaining ex parte orders by suppression,
misrepresentation or mis-statement 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. Two different
proceedings were pending. One set of proceedings were initiated
against the petitioner company itself by the notice, dated the 3rd of
January, 1950. Suppressions and mis-statements about the
residence of the shareholders and the directors, the places of
business of the petitioner company and about the numerical
majority of the Hindu shareholders were clearly directed to give an
impression to the court that the petitioner company could not
possibly be held to be an evacuee. The allegations of personal
interest and mala fides against the Deputy Custodian (Judicial)
were made without any foundation whatsoever for the purpose of
inducing the court to issue a writ of prohibition on the argument
that a judicial officer acting mala fide or having a personal interest
in the dispute, has not jurisdiction to deal with the proceedings
before him. The second set of proceedings were against the
shareholders and, in these proceedings also, the Custodian
contended that steps could be taken against the property of the
company because some of the shareholders had become
evacuees. Misrepresentations about the residence of the
shareholders was also made for the purpose of meeting this
contention. Obviously this is a clear case where, on the principles
enunciated by us, the petitioner company, which actually obtained
nisi
a rule from a Bench of this Court, should be sent out of court
without hearing on merits. The only grounds for challenging the
jurisdiction of the Custodian taken on behalf of the petitioner
company, which may be said to raise the question of patent lack of
jurisdiction, are those relating to the contention that the Evacuee
Property Act is itself ultra vires of the legislature, as it contravenes
the provisions of Articles 14 and 19( f ) of the Constitution. These
points shall be dealt with by us later."
7. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to disclose the earlier
writ proceedings concerning the same subject matter. The said
omission is material, as the outcome of those proceedings may have
a direct bearing on the controversy raised in the present writ petition.
The petitioner cannot seek the discretionary relief of this Court while

WRIC No. 10302 of 2026
4
withholding material information concerning the very subject matter of
the dispute.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and the settled legal position, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to
approach the Court with clean hands. The suppression of material
facts disentitles the petitioner from seeking the discretionary relief
available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently,
this Court does not find any justification to entertain the present writ
petition.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of
suppression of material facts .
October 15, 2026
cks/-
(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
CHANDRA KANT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench