Full disclosure and approbate-reprobate principles bar challenge to an order after seeking its implementation; administrative approval must rest on complete records.

Full and frank disclosure is required when discretionary relief is sought; suppression of a prior request for implementation of the same order can render a later challenge not maintainable because a litigant cannot approbate and reprobate. The court also noted that an earlier direction to consider applications on materials available up to 1 June 2005 did not bar later proceedings arising from a separate administrative decision, and that approval under the governing public distribution order must be taken on the complete record and within the authority conferred. The restriction to pre-cutoff materials was treated as consistent with the regulatory framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was maintainable in view of suppression of the appellant's prior request for implementation of the impugned order and the consequential principle that a party cannot accept an order and later challenge it; (ii) whether the impugned order was vitiated for being contrary to the earlier direction and for directing consideration only of materials available as on 1 June 2005, including the effect of Paragraph 23 of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal was maintainable in view of suppression of the appellant's prior request for implementation of the impugned order and the consequential principle that a party cannot accept an order and later challenge it.

Analysis: The appellant had sought compliance of the impugned order by a subsequent letter, but that material fact was not disclosed when leave to appeal was obtained. The requirement of full and frank disclosure applies with particular force where discretionary relief is invoked. The Court also applied the principle that a litigant cannot approbate and reprobate, and that acceptance of an order followed by a request for implementation precludes a later challenge to the same order.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable and the appellant was estopped from challenging the impugned order.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order was vitiated for being contrary to the earlier direction and for directing consideration only of materials available as on 1 June 2005, including the effect of Paragraph 23 of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003.

Analysis: The earlier direction related to consideration of applications on the basis of particulars submitted on or before 1 June 2005, while the challenged order arose from a later administrative decision and notice. The Court found no inconsistency with the prior direction because the later proceedings gave rise to a separate cause of action. It also upheld the finding that the Director lacked authority under Paragraph 23 to take the final decision in the manner adopted, and that the approval granted without the complete record was mechanical and unsustainable. The direction to exclude post-cutoff materials was treated as consistent with the governing framework.

Conclusion: The impugned order was not vitiated on merits or jurisdiction, and the restriction to materials existing as on 1 June 2005 was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the impugned order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A party that withholds a material fact while seeking discretionary relief and later seeks implementation of the very order complained of is barred from challenging that order, and administrative approval affecting selection must be based on the complete record and within the authority conferred by the governing order.

---