Suppression of material facts bars discretionary writ relief where the petitioner misstates the status of securitisation proceedings.

A writ petition seeking mandamus to restrain sale proceedings was declined because the petitioner had not made full and fair disclosure of material facts. The petitioner failed to disclose that the securitisation application had already been dismissed and proceeded as if it were still pending, which amounted to suppression directly relevant to the relief sought. Since relief under Article 226 is discretionary and equitable, the Court held that a litigant who misstates the procedural status of the underlying proceedings is not entitled to extraordinary writ relief. The petition was therefore rejected, leaving the petitioner to pursue the available remedy before the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking a mandamus to restrain the sale proceedings could be entertained when the petitioner had suppressed the dismissal of the pending securitisation application and had not placed the full facts before the Court.

Analysis: Relief under Article 226 is discretionary and equitable. A person invoking writ jurisdiction must make a full and fair disclosure of all material facts. Where material facts are suppressed or the Court is misled, especially on a matter directly bearing on the relief sought, the writ Court may decline to exercise its equitable jurisdiction. The petitioner had not disclosed that the securitisation application had already been dismissed and proceeded on the footing that it was pending, which amounted to suppression of material facts and an attempt to obtain discretionary relief without candour.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in equity and the request for mandamus was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court refused to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction on account of suppression of material facts and dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioner to pursue remedy before the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petitioner who suppresses material facts relevant to the relief sought and misstates the procedural status of the underlying proceedings is not entitled to discretionary relief under Article 226.

---