A litigant who suppresses material facts is disentitled to discretionary writ relief.

Respondent No. 5 sought correction of revenue entries concerning land in Mohal Kulg aon. After remand proceedings, the Settlement Collector ordered correction on 21 August 2019. The petitioner’s appeal against that order was delayed. The Divisional Commissioner rejected her application for condonation of delay, and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed her revision.

The petitioner challenged that dismissal under Article 226, contending that she had not been served in the correction proceedings and learned of the Collector’s order only in June 2020. The High Court found that mutation had been attested in the presence of the petitioner’s son on 26 November 2019 and that the petitioner had obtained a certified copy of the order on 6 December 2019; it also found no plausible explanation for the delay.

Whether the authorities erred in refusing to condone the delay in the petitioner’s appeal against the Settlement Collector’s order dated 21 August 2019

Whether the petitioner’s conduct, including her inconsistent account of when she learned of the order and her failure to disclose material facts, justified refusing relief under Article 226

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation of delay where sufficient cause is shown; the applicant must provide a credible explanation for the delay. Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act was the provision under which the petitioner had invoked revisional jurisdiction.

The High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 is extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary. A petitioner seeking that relief must make full and candid disclosure of material facts; suppression or misrepresentation may justify dismissal without examination of the merits. The Court relied on K. Jayaram v. BDA, (2022) 12 SCC 815, and The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey, Civil Appeal No. 13851 of 2024, decided 17 March 2025, among other authorities, for the clean-hands principle.

The Court held that the petitioner’s claimed June 2020 knowledge was contradicted by the record: her son was present when the mutation was attested on 26 November 2019, and the certified copy of the Collector’s order was obtained on 6 December 2019.

The petitioner had also given inconsistent accounts of when she received or learned of the order, and had not plausibly explained the delay in filing her appeal. In those circumstances, the authorities committed no error in refusing condonation. The petitioner’s failure to disclose material facts further weighed against discretionary relief under Article 226.

Finding no illegality or infirmity in the Financial Commissioner (Appeals)’ order, it dismissed the writ petition, disposed of pending applications, and vacated any interim directions; no order as to costs was made.