Clean hands in writ jurisdiction bars challenge where material facts were suppressed after retaining transaction proceeds.

Writ relief under Article 226 is discretionary and requires full, candid disclosure of all material facts. Where the petitioner had received, retained and utilised the consideration paid after a pre-emptive acquisition order under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, but failed to disclose those facts in the writ petition and rejoinder, the Court treated the conduct as suppression of material facts and approbation and reprobation. That conduct disentitled the petitioner from discretionary relief, so the challenge to the acquisition was rejected at the threshold without examination of the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitioner was entitled to relief against pre-emptive acquisition when it had suppressed the fact that the full apparent consideration had already been received and retained by the parties, and whether such conduct disentitled it from invoking writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and equitable. A petitioner must make full and candid disclosure of all material facts and approach the Court with clean hands. The record showed that after the order of acquisition under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Central Government had paid the apparent consideration to the petitioner and the vendors, and those amounts were received, retained, and utilised. The writ petition and rejoinder did not disclose these material facts. The Court held that the petitioner could not accept and retain the benefit arising from the transaction and at the same time challenge the acquisition order. The conduct amounted to suppression of material facts and an attempt to approbate and reprobate, warranting refusal of discretionary relief without examining the merits.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to relief and the writ petition failed on account of concealment of material facts and inconsistent conduct.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the pre-emptive purchase order was dismissed at the threshold, leaving the acquisition undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petitioner who suppresses material facts and, after receiving and retaining the consideration arising from the impugned transaction, seeks to challenge it is not entitled to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---