Full and frank disclosure governs special leave relief, and material suppression can justify recall of leave already granted.

Under Article 136, special leave is a discretionary and sparingly exercised remedy that requires full and frank disclosure of all material facts. If an applicant suppresses or misstates a fact within personal knowledge, particularly one affecting whether leave should be granted, the Court may decline to exercise the discretion or recall leave already granted. Concealment of the withdrawal of deposited funds was treated as material because it changed the factual basis on which special leave had been obtained, justifying revocation of the relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether special leave to appeal could be revoked where the applicant had withheld a material fact bearing on the Court's exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court held that the jurisdiction to grant special leave is discretionary and is to be exercised sparingly. A litigant seeking such relief must make full and frank disclosure of all material facts that may affect the exercise of that discretion. Where the applicant suppresses or misstates a fact within his knowledge, especially one that would have had a direct bearing on whether leave should have been granted, the Court is justified in refusing to exercise the discretion or in recalling leave already granted. The concealment of the withdrawal of the deposited amount was treated as a material suppression because it altered the factual basis on which special leave had been obtained.

Conclusion: Special leave was properly revoked for suppression of material facts, and the applicant was not entitled to the discretionary relief of the Court.

---