Writ jurisdiction may be denied for suppression of material facts despite availability of statutory remedies.

The Applicant’s land (Gut No. 257) was acquired for National Highway 211.

He filed Writ Petition No. 2137/2021 challenging a communication dated 09.11.2020 which rejected his claim for compensation regarding sweet lime and custard apple trees.

On 06.07.2022, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition because the Applicant suppressed the fact that he had already invoked statutory remedies under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, where an Arbitrator had already passed an award on 27.06.2019, which was subsequently challenged by the Applicant before the District Judge.

The Applicant filed this review application, claiming he was an illiterate agriculturist unaware of the legal proceedings initiated by his advocate.

1. Whether the suppression of material facts regarding parallel statutory proceedings warrants the dismissal of a writ petition without adjudication on merits.

2. Whether the Applicant’s ignorance of proceedings filed on his behalf constitutes an "error apparent on the face of the record" justifying a review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC.

The Court applied the principle that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary, requiring litigants to approach the court with "clean hands".

It relied on *K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority* (2022), which holds that withholding vital material to gain an advantage is a fraud on the court.

Regarding the scope of review, the Court applied Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC and the principles in *Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd.* (2023), which restrict review to errors apparent on the face of the record that do not require long-drawn reasoning.

The Court observed that the Applicant approached the writ court while simultaneously pursuing a challenge against the Arbitrator’s award before the District Judge.

This was deemed a deliberate "hide and seek" tactic rather than an innocent omission.

The Court rejected the Applicant’s plea of ignorance regarding his lawyer's actions, noting that the Arbitrator had specifically framed and answered issues regarding the Valuation of the trees in the negative—a fact the Applicant failed to disclose.

Applying the *Arun Dev* standard, the Court reasoned that the original dismissal was a valid exercise of discretionary power due to the Applicant’s conduct; therefore, there was no self-evident error in the judgment.

A review cannot be used as an "appeal in disguise" to re-argue the merits of a case already dismissed for suppression.

It held that the refusal to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 due to suppression of material facts does not constitute a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

The Court reaffirmed that providing false statements or misleading the court at the threshold justifies dismissal without an examination of the merits.

No relief was granted to the Applicant.