Suppression of material facts defeats writ relief when a petitioner withholds facts explaining account freezing and investigation.

A writ petition under Article 226 is not fit for discretionary relief where the petitioner suppresses material facts directly bearing on the cause of action. Full candour and clean hands are required in writ jurisdiction, and concealment of the account-freezing order and the underlying investigation showed lack of bona fides. The petition was therefore dismissed as not entertainable for suppression of material facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition under Article 226 was liable to be entertained when the petitioner had concealed material facts relating to the freezing of the account and the underlying investigation.

Analysis: Relief in writ jurisdiction is discretionary and a litigant seeking such relief must approach the Court with full candour. Where material facts bearing directly on the cause of action are withheld, especially facts explaining the action complained of, the petition is hit by lack of bona fides and is not fit for exercise of writ discretion. The record showed that the freezing of the account was linked to alleged passport forgery and investigation by the Enforcement Directorate, facts which were not disclosed in the petition.

Conclusion: The petition was not entertainable and was dismissed for suppression of material facts and failure to approach the Court with clean hands.

---