### Writ Jurisdiction Inadmissible in Private Disputes Involving Suppressio Veri and Interconnected Criminal Investigations

The Petitioners, stakeholders in a resort project in Arpora, Goa, filed this writ petition following a tragic fire on December 6-7, 2025, at a commercial establishment named ‘Birch by Romeo Lane’—operated by Respondent No. 10—which resulted in 25 deaths.

The Petitioners alleged that Respondent No. 10 violated various land development, building, and environmental laws, and that authorities failed to act on their prior complaints.

The court initially took suo moto cognizance of the tragedy (PIL No. 1/2026) but later segregated this petition upon finding it involved a private dispute.

Evidence revealed long-standing civil litigation and cross-suits between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 10 dating back to 2004, stemming from a 2004 Agreement.

The State contended that the Petitioners suppressed material facts and that the structures involved were actually constructed by the Petitioners themselves.

The Court applied the principles governing the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for adjudicating deeply "disputed questions of facts" which are better suited for civil courts.

A petitioner must approach the court with "clean hands," requiring full and complete disclosure of all material facts; "gross suppression" of vital documents disentitles a party to discretionary relief.

While the pendency of a civil suit is not an absolute bar to a writ if statutory violations occur, the lack of bona fides and the attempt to resolve private interests under the garb of public interest precludes such relief.

The Court determined that the dispute was essentially a private contractual and property conflict masquerading as a public interest matter.

By examining the procedural history, the Court found that the Petitioners failed to disclose that they were refused interim relief in their 2004 civil suit and, most critically, suppressed the Agreement dated April 23, 2004, which formed the basis of their relationship with Respondent No. 10.

The Court reasoned that the Petitioners only approached the High Court after the fire tragedy to preemptively shield themselves from ongoing criminal investigations and compensate for their failure to obtain relief in civil court over the past two decades.

Because the larger public issues regarding illegal constructions were already being addressed in the Suo Moto PIL, the Petitioners’ persistence in pressing this separate petition highlighted a "private interest" rather than a genuine concern for the rule of law.

It held that the Petitioners approached the Court with "unclean hands" due to the gross suppression of material facts and the existence of complex disputed questions of fact currently under civil and criminal investigation.

The Court directed that since the larger environmental and safety issues are being monitored in Suo Moto PIL No. 1/2026, no further orders were necessary at the behest of these Petitioners.