Suppression of material facts disentitles a litigant from seeking discretionary and equitable relief under Article 226.

The Appellant, a dealer for Respondent No. 2 (IOCL), operated a retail outlet on land allotted by Respondent No. 1 (DDA) in 1993.

On 27.08.1997, DDA issued a Cancellation Notice for the site due to failure to vacate a previous location and non-payment of fees.

Despite this, the Appellant continued operations for ten years.

In 2007, following a PIL-related order to close the pump for public interest, DDA formally directed closure and refused re-sitement, stating the site had been cancelled since 1997.

The Appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging the refusal of an alternate site, which was dismissed by a Single Judge for concealment of material facts regarding the 1997 cancellation.

The Appellant then preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

1. Whether the Appellant had locus standi to challenge the cancellation despite a lack of privity of contract with the DDA.

2. Whether the Appellant was guilty of suppression of material facts and "unclean hands" regarding her knowledge of the 1997 Cancellation Notice.

3. Whether the DDA had waived its right to enforce the cancellation by accepting lease rentals and allowing continued operation for ten years.

4. Whether the Appellant was entitled to re-sitement under the DDA’s policy.

The court applied Section 43(1) of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957, read with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, regarding the service of notices by registered post.

It relied on the equitable principle that a petitioner must approach the court with "clean hands" and disclose all material facts.

The court applied precedents from Rajasthan State Industrial Development Investment Corpn. v. Diamond Gem Development Corpn. Ltd. and Pratima Chowdhury v. Kalpana Mukherjee, establishing that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel cannot be invoked against statutory authorities to create rights contrary to law or policy.

It further relied on Planet M. Retail Ltd. v. Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., holding that a licensee's possession after termination is unlawful.

The Court found that while the Appellant claimed ignorance of the 1997 cancellation, her own letter dated 02.09.1997 seeking "restoration" proved she had actual knowledge.

This suppression warranted dismissal under Article 226.

Regarding the lack of a Show Cause Notice (SCN), the Court reasoned that the Appellant and IOCL had actual notice and responded to the grounds of cancellation, thus satisfying natural justice.

The Court rejected the "waiver" argument, ruling that DDA’s administrative inaction or demand for fees did not revive a cancelled allotment or grant a vested right to Government land.

Finally, the Court held that the re-sitement policy was reserved for lawful occupants; as the Appellant’s status became "unauthorised" post-1997, she did not qualify for an alternate site.

It held that the Appellant approached the court with "unclean hands" by concealing her knowledge of the 1997 cancellation.

The Court ordered the Appellant and IOCL to hand over vacant possession of the site forthwith and imposed costs of ₹50,000/- on the Appellant for suppressing material facts and burdening the court with unmeritorious litigation.