Suppressing prior proceedings on the same subject matter disentitles petitioners to Article 226 relief.

The petitioner invoked Article 226 to challenge an order dated 25 July 2025 and sought, among other reliefs, to stop construction on the disputed land and obtain a decision on a representation.

The State raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had not disclosed Writ Petition No. 26481 (MB) of 2021, concerning the same subject matter, in which the petitioner had been arrayed as respondent No. 7; the petitioner had also not disclosed particulars of that proceeding or the order passed in it.

The Court dismissed the petition without determining its substantive merits.

Whether the petitioner’s failure to disclose earlier proceedings concerning the same subject matter amounted to suppression of material facts disentitling the petitioner to relief under Article 226.

A litigant invoking the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 must make full and fair disclosure of material facts, approach the Court with clean hands, and avoid misleading statements or incorrect information; suppression of material facts may disentitle the litigant to relief.

Relying on The Asiatic Engineering Company v. Achhru Ram and others, 1951 SCC OnLine All 60, the Court reiterated that a litigant who obtains or seeks relief under Article 226 by suppressing relevant facts may be denied relief.

The earlier writ petition concerned the same subject matter, and the petitioner’s participation in it as respondent No. 7 was material to the controversy.

The petitioner did not disclose the proceeding or the order made in it, although its outcome could bear directly on the present dispute. Applying the clean-hands and disclosure principles, the Court held that this suppression disentitled the petitioner from seeking discretionary relief under Article 226.

The writ petition was dismissed on that ground, without adjudication of its substantive claims.