A litigant who suppresses prior adverse proceedings is not entitled to writ relief.

The petitioners challenged land-grant orders dated 26 July 2004, seeking their quashing and a direction for action against the concerned officers

The Court noted that the petitioners had pursued an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed on 25 April 2019, and had also approached the Assistant Commissioner and suffered an adverse order

The Court found that these proceedings and their outcomes had not been disclosed in the writ petition

Whether the petitioners’ non-disclosure of prior proceedings and adverse orders disentitled them to relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

Whether the relief sought remained for consideration after the petitioners had pursued other proceedings and suffered adverse orders that had attained finality

A litigant seeking relief under the writ jurisdiction must approach the Court with clean hands and disclose material facts; suppression of material information may justify refusal of relief. The Court relied on M/S Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449, in applying this principle

The Court also treated the prior adverse orders, which it found had attained finality, as relevant to whether the writ relief survived for consideration

The Court found that the petitioners had pursued proceedings before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the Assistant Commissioner, suffered adverse orders, and failed to disclose those matters. It further noted that the petitioners had approached other forums even after filing the writ petition.

Applying the clean-hands principle in Prestige Lights, the Court concluded that the suppression of these material circumstances disentitled the petitioners to the relief sought; the prior proceedings also meant that the writ relief did not survive for consideration

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of as not surviving for consideration