Clean Hands Doctrine bars discretionary relief where material facts are suppressed and the Court is misled.

A litigant seeking discretionary or writ relief must make full and frank disclosure of all material facts and approach the Court with clean hands. Here, the appellant suppressed the true basis for seeking to set aside an ex parte order, made misleading assertions about the proceedings and service of notice, and repeated the same false position before the Court. That conduct justified refusal of interference, especially where interim protection had already helped retain surplus land and delay ceiling proceedings. The challenge therefore failed and relief was denied on the ground of suppression and misrepresentation alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to relief in view of the suppression of material facts and false statements made before the authorities and the Court.

Analysis: Relief under the Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction and writ jurisdiction is available only to a litigant who comes with clean hands and makes full and frank disclosure of all material facts. The record showed that the tenure-holder's explanation for non-filing of objections did not disclose the true basis on which the ex parte order was sought to be set aside, and the writ petition carried a misleading assertion that the proceedings were unknown because of serious illness. The Court found that the same false position was repeated before it regarding service of notice. Such conduct was held to justify refusal of relief, particularly where interim protection had enabled retention of surplus land and frustrated implementation of the ceiling proceedings.

Conclusion: The appellant was disentitled to relief and the challenge to the orders could not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A litigant who suppresses material facts or misleads the Court is not entitled to discretionary relief under Articles 136, 226, or 32 of the Constitution of India, and the Court may refuse interference on that ground alone.

---