Clean hands in writ jurisdiction bars repeated petitions over the same recovery dispute and can justify dismissal for abuse of process.

Writ jurisdiction is equitable and demands full disclosure and clean hands. Where a litigant files repeated writ petitions arising from the same recovery controversy, the court may treat the later petition as suppression of material facts and abuse of process, even if the prayers differ or the matter arises at different stages of the recovery action. The earlier and connected proceedings had already raised the real dispute concerning recovery of the loan amount and the challenge to the recovery machinery, including the validity of Section 35A of the U.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board Act, 1960. The later petition was not accepted as presenting a distinct cause of action and was liable to be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts and abuse of the process of court on account of repeated writ petitions arising from the same recovery proceedings.

Analysis: The writ jurisdiction is equitable in nature and requires a litigant to approach the court with clean hands. Where multiple writ petitions are filed over the same core controversy, even if individual prayers differ or orders arise at different stages of the same recovery action, the court may treat the conduct as suppression of material facts and abuse of process. The earlier and connected proceedings showed that the real controversy throughout concerned recovery of the loan amount, and the challenge to the recovery machinery, including the validity of Section 35A of the U.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board Act, 1960, had already been raised in prior proceedings. The contention that the later petition involved a distinct cause of action was not accepted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was correctly treated as an abuse of process and was liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petitioner who suppresses material facts or repeatedly invokes writ jurisdiction over the same core dispute without full disclosure acts contrary to the clean hands requirement, and the court may refuse relief on the ground of abuse of process.

---