Clean hands doctrine bars discretionary writ relief where material facts are suppressed in seeking equitable jurisdiction.

Discretionary writ relief may be refused where the petitioner suppresses material facts and does not approach the court with clean hands. The petition was found to lack frank disclosure of the facts surrounding detention of the goods, which the court treated as serious misconduct in the exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction. As a result, the court declined to entertain the petition without going into the merits. The writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn, and costs were imposed on the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner had suppressed material facts and, if so, whether discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction should be declined.

Analysis: The petition was found to have been filed without frank and candid disclosure of the material facts surrounding the detention of the goods. The court treated such suppression as serious misconduct in the exercise of equitable writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A litigant who does not approach the court with clean hands is not entitled to discretionary relief, and the court may refuse to entertain the petition without entering into the merits.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to writ relief, and the court declined to entertain the petition.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn, and costs were imposed on the petitioner for the court's charitable and legal services authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Discretionary writ relief may be refused where the petitioner suppresses material facts or otherwise approaches the court without clean hands.

---