Writ jurisdiction and suppression of material facts justified setting aside an earlier order and restoring the matter for rehearing.

A High Court may, in appropriate writ proceedings, interfere with its own earlier order where suppression of material facts has affected the rights of a non-heard party and caused manifest injustice. The text explains that a settlement in connected writ proceedings was entered into without disclosing an existing bridge-loan arrangement involving another bank, materially prejudicing that bank. On those facts, objections based on non-impleadment, availability of appeal, and delay and laches were rejected, and corrective relief was granted by setting aside the earlier order and restoring the connected petition for fresh hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier order passed in the connected writ petition was liable to be set aside on the ground that the affected bank was not heard and material facts regarding its prior financial arrangement with the company were suppressed.

Analysis: The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to correct an earlier order passed in connected proceedings. The Court held that the company and the co-operative bank had reached a settlement in the earlier writ petition without bringing to notice the existing bridge-loan arrangement with the petitioner bank, and that this omission had materially affected the petitioner bank's rights. The Court accepted that a High Court has power in appropriate cases to interfere with its own earlier order to prevent miscarriage of justice and to rectify grave error. The objections based on absence of impleadment, availability of appeal, and delay and laches were rejected on the facts.

Conclusion: The earlier order was set aside in exercise of writ jurisdiction, and the connected writ petition was directed to be reposted for further hearing.

Final Conclusion: The Court granted corrective relief to the petitioner by undoing the earlier order and restoring the connected matter for fresh consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court may, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, set aside its own earlier order where suppression of material facts and non-disclosure of an affected party have resulted in manifest injustice and miscarriage of justice.

---