Litigant approaching Court with unclean hands and false statements is disentitled to relief under Article 226.

The Petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash a Notice dated 28th April 2026 issued by the Circle Officer, Mandvi

The Petitioner claimed that the subject structure (House No. 413/A) was his residence, constructed prior to 1994 on agricultural land he cultivated

He supported this with a 2018 Sarpanch certificate, a 2014 assessment receipt, and a 2026 electricity bill

During proceedings, the Respondent-State produced photographs showing the structure was actually a commercial establishment named "Hotel Haryana Punjab"

The Petitioner’s counsel could not produce any documents showing building permissions or refute the commercial nature of the property

1. Whether a litigant who approaches the Court with unclean hands and suppressed material facts is entitled to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. Whether a structure constructed without appropriate permissions from local authorities is legal and immune from demolition.

A litigant who approaches the Court with "unclean hands" or suppressed facts is disentitled to relief, as established in S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994), which defines withholding vital documents as a fraud on the Court

Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010), holding that those who "pollute the stream of justice" are not entitled to interim or final relief

Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2007) and K. D. Sharma v. SAIL (2008), which establish that High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 act as Courts of equity and are justified in summarily rejecting petitions based on distorted facts or misrepresentation

The Court found that the Petitioner’s claim of the structure being a "residential house" constructed prior to 1994 was a deliberate falsehood, as undisputed photographic evidence proved the building was being used as a hotel

The Court reasoned that since the Petitioner obtained a stay order from the Vacation Court on the basis of these false and unsubstantiated pleadings, he had committed a fraud on the Court

The Court noted that even if the Petitioner owned the land, he failed to demonstrate that he had obtained any legal permissions for construction, rendering the structure illegal

The Court emphasized that a citizen seeking constitutional relief must first demonstrate they have discharged their own duties by conforming to the law

The Sarpanch certificate provided was deemed "wholly insufficient" to prove the legality or age of the structure

A structure built without due permission is illegal and liable for demolition, and the Petitioner had failed to substantiate his claim of legality [para. 9]. No order as to costs was made