False declaration in writ proceedings can bar Article 226 relief and justify prosecution for concealment.

False declaration on oath and concealment of an earlier writ petition on the same subject matter were treated as deliberate misconduct that disentitled the petitioners to discretionary relief under Article 226. The Court regarded the attempt to secure refund relief by suppressing the prior dismissal as an abuse of process and held that equitable writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of misleading statements. It also found that prosecution could properly be directed for the false declaration, reflecting the legal consequence of false evidence and concealment in judicial proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners, having made a false declaration on oath and concealed the earlier writ petition on the same subject matter, were entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and whether prosecution could be directed for the false declaration.

Analysis: The petition was founded on a declaration that no earlier writ petition on the same subject matter had been filed, although an earlier petition seeking refund of the same additional customs duty had already been dismissed. The Court treated the false statement as intentional and held that the petitioners had attempted to obtain relief by misleading the Court. Such conduct was treated as an abuse of the process of the Court and as conduct disentitling the petitioners to discretionary relief under Article 226. The Court also found it necessary to direct prosecution for the false declaration.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to relief under Article 226 and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. Prosecution was properly directed for offences relating to false evidence and false declarations.

---