This is settled in law that one has to approach the Court with clean hands, clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. The petitioner must put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.
Principles on Conduct of Litigant before the Writ Court
1. A writ remedy is an equitable one. While exercising extraordinary power a Writ Court certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court.
2. Litigant before the Writ Court must come with clean hands, clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. He should disclose all facts without suppressing anything. Litigant cannot be allowed to play “hide and seek” or to “pick and choose” the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back)/ conceal other facts.
3. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or mis representation which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction.
4. If litigant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly or states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power to refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty.
5. Such a litigant requires to be dealt with for Contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court.
6. There is a compelling need to take a serious view in such matters to ensure purity and grace in the administration of justice.
7. The litigation in the Court of law is not a game of chess. The Court is bound to see the conduct of party who is invoking such jurisdiction.
Case Laws on the above subject
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan and another, (2011) 7 SCC 639
- Manohar Lal (Dead) By Lrs. v. Ugrasen, (2010) 11 SCC 557
- Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114
- K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited, (2008) 12 SCC 481
- Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 1 SCC 560
- Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449
The above principles are culled out from the above listed judgments which is also referred in the latest judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Central Ware House Vs. Union of India dated 11 May 2015.