The Dhana Khurd Transport Co-op. Society Ltd. vs State of Haryana and Others

S.S. Nijjar, J.—We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

Written statement has been filed. The writ petition has been filed challenging order. Annexure P-6 whereby the temporary alternative route allotted to the petitioner had been cancelled. The petitioner did not find in necessary to disclose this Court that the reason for cancellation of the temporary route allotment was due to the fact that the original route allotted to the petitioner has, in the meantime, been made motorable. This fact is contained in the report submitted by the District Transport Officer. The name of the petitioner-Society is mentioned at Sr. No. 10 against Route No. 32. Had the aforesaid fact been brought to the notice of this Court, there was no question to the petition being entertained or the grant of interim relief. These facts have been brought to the notice of this Court, in the written statement filed by the respondents. The report of the D.T.O. has been attached with the written statement as Annexure R-1. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a prayer that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition.

We are of the considered opinion that this Court would be failing in its duty, if the displeasure of the Court with the conduct of the petitioner is concealing the material facts from this Court is not put on the record. It is a settled proposition of law that it is the bounded duty of all the parties to disclose all material facts to the Court upon which the claim for relief is based. Merely because a particular fact would detract from the merit of the case put forward by the petitioner or the respondent, is not a ground for not disclosing the material fact to the Court. When the parties seek discretionary relief of the Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, full disclosure of all the material facts in a sine qua non. Any effort made by any party to mislead the Court must be viewed with serious concern by the. Court.

In view of the above, we are not inclined to accept the request of the counsel for the petitioner for permission to withdraw the writ petition. We find that the petitioner does not deserve to be heard on merit at all. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. Costs Rs. 5,000/-.

Sd/- M.M. Kumar, J.