Fairness in State financial corporation sales requires bona fide process, adequate publicity, and real bidder participation.

Suppression bars relief only when the undisclosed fact is material to the merits of the claim; a prior suit withdrawn before the writ was heard did not, on these facts, justify rejection of the petition. A sale by a State Financial Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 must be bona fide, fair and reasonable, with adequate publicity and a real opportunity for bidders to participate. On the stated facts, the short tender period, holiday timing, unexplained procedural departures, falling valuations and premature payment by the purchaser indicated unfairness, rendering the sale invalid and liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected for suppression of a material fact on account of the prior suit, and (ii) whether the sale of the hotel under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 was fair and sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected for suppression of a material fact on account of the prior suit.

Analysis: Suppression disqualifies a litigant only when the undisclosed fact is material to the merits of the relief sought. The prior suit had been withdrawn before the writ petition was heard, the pleadings were complete, and the High Court had all facts necessary to decide the matter on merits. The earlier suit did not go to the maintainability or merits of the writ in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The writ petition could not be rejected on the ground of suppression of the prior suit; the finding of disqualification from relief was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the sale of the hotel under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 was fair and sustainable.

Analysis: Statutory power under Section 29 had to be exercised bona fide, fairly, and reasonably, with the dominant objective of securing the best price through adequate publicity and meaningful participation of bidders. The impugned sale notice allowed an unduly short period, coincided with holidays, and was followed by unexplained departures from normal procedure. The repeated sharp fall in valuation, the advance payment by the purchaser before expiry of the tender period, and the absence of satisfactory explanation together indicated unfairness in the process.

Conclusion: The sale was unfair, invalid, and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to relief, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the sale in favour of the purchaser was annulled with consequential directions for restoration and adjustment of amounts.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale by a State Financial Corporation under Section 29 must be conducted bona fide and reasonably, with adequate publicity and a fair opportunity for participation, and a writ petition cannot be rejected for suppression unless the omitted fact is material to the merits of the relief sought.

---