Writ Petition Dismissed: Suppression of Facts and No Legal Right to Mandamus Leads to Rs. 50,000 Penalty.

The HC dismissed the writ petition due to suppression of material facts and absence of a legal right to mandamus. The petitioner was ordered to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000 within four weeks, with the amount to be deposited with the Legal Service Authority of the State of U.P., or face further action by the Senior Registrar.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Preliminary Objection Regarding Multiple Petitions
2. Alleged Concealment of Material Facts
3. Legal Right to Mandamus

Detailed Analysis:

1. Preliminary Objection Regarding Multiple Petitions:
The respondent's counsel, Shri Manish Misra, raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had filed multiple writ petitions on the same cause of action without disclosing this fact in the current petition. The court reviewed the details of eight previously filed writ petitions by the petitioner, including the dates and parties involved. The respondent produced relevant orders from the earlier writ petitions, highlighting that the petitioner had sought to withdraw some petitions with liberty to pursue pending ones, and in others, the petitions were dismissed as frivolous or non-maintainable. The court noted that the petitioner had suppressed the fact of filing these previous petitions, which amounted to misleading the court.

2. Alleged Concealment of Material Facts:
The court emphasized that the petitioner had not disclosed the filing of earlier writ petitions on the same cause of action, which was brought to light by the respondent's counsel. The court referenced various judgments, including *Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India* and *Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, to underline that suppression of material facts or misleading the court disqualifies a petitioner from seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court reiterated that a person invoking the High Court's jurisdiction must disclose all relevant facts candidly. The court found that the petitioner's actions amounted to suppression of material facts and misrepresentation, which vitiates the proceedings.

3. Legal Right to Mandamus:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation), Lucknow, to take action on a complaint dated 07.09.2019. The court explained that for a writ of mandamus to be issued, there must be a clear legal right on the part of the petitioner and a corresponding legal duty on the part of the respondent. The court cited various legal principles and precedents, including definitions and conditions for issuing mandamus, as outlined in *Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar* and *Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana*. The court concluded that the petitioner did not demonstrate a legally enforceable right or a duty on the part of the respondent that warranted the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of suppression of material facts and lack of a legal right to mandamus. The petitioner was ordered to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000 within four weeks, failing which appropriate action would be taken by the Senior Registrar of the court. The amount was to be deposited with the Legal Service Authority of the State of U.P.

---