Clean hands doctrine bars Article 226 relief where a petitioner misrepresents court orders and overreaches attached accounts.

Extraordinary writ relief under Article 226 was refused because the petitioner lacked clean hands, having misrepresented that oral directions permitted withdrawal of funds and having acted on that misrepresentation to withdraw amounts from attached accounts. The Court held that alleged oral instructions could not vary the written order and that such conduct showed an attempt to overreach the Court. On the same facts, the Court found a prima facie case of wilful disobedience and interference with the administration of justice, and directed suo motu civil and criminal contempt notice against the concerned persons.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner, having misrepresented to third parties that the Court had passed oral directions and having withdrawn funds from attached bank accounts without any such order, was entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the conduct disclosed a prima facie case of civil and criminal contempt warranting suo motu notice.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner, having misrepresented to third parties that the Court had passed oral directions and having withdrawn funds from attached bank accounts without any such order, was entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The communications relied upon by the petitioner falsely suggested that oral directions had been issued on 19 December 2017 permitting withdrawal of funds. The Court found that no such oral directions had ever been given and that the written order could not be varied by alleged oral instructions. The subsequent withdrawal of funds from attached accounts, coupled with the misrepresentation of the Court's order, showed lack of clean hands and an attempt to overreach the Court. A petitioner seeking extraordinary writ relief must maintain candour throughout the proceedings.

Conclusion: The petitioner was disentitled to any relief under Article 226, and the petition was dismissed.

Issue (ii): Whether the conduct disclosed a prima facie case of civil and criminal contempt warranting suo motu notice.

Analysis: The Court found prima facie that the letters issued by the petitioner's president and by the tax recovery officer misstated the effect of the Court's proceedings and orders. The alleged conduct was viewed as wilful disobedience of the Court's order and as conduct interfering with, or tending to interfere with, the due course of judicial proceedings and the administration of justice.

Conclusion: Suo motu contempt notice was directed to be issued for both civil and criminal contempt against the concerned persons.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on account of the petitioner's inequitable conduct, and the Court additionally initiated contempt proceedings for prima facie disobedience and interference with justice administration.

Ratio Decidendi: Extraordinary writ relief may be refused where a petitioner lacks clean hands, misrepresents the Court's order, and attempts to overreach the Court; such conduct can also justify prima facie contempt action.

---