Clean hands in writ jurisdiction bars relief where material facts and final eviction proceedings were suppressed.

Writ relief was refused because the petitioners suppressed material facts about the prior eviction proceedings and the finality of those proceedings under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The Court held that writ jurisdiction is equitable and requires a litigant to come with clean hands; where earlier show-cause, eviction, appeal and revision stages had already concluded, non-disclosure of those facts misled the Court and amounted to abuse of process. The petition therefore failed and no equitable relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to writ relief despite suppression of material facts and failure to disclose the finality of the eviction proceedings.

Analysis: The petitioners had challenged the notice directing vacation of the premises, but the eviction proceedings had already progressed through the statutory stages under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, including show-cause notice, eviction order, dismissal of appeal, and dismissal of revision. These material facts were not disclosed while seeking interim and final relief. Since writ jurisdiction is equitable, a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands. Suppression of the prior proceedings and the finality of the eviction order amounted to misleading the Court and abusing the process.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to any equitable relief, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected on the ground that the petitioners had approached the Court with unclean hands and had abused the process of court.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ remedy being equitable cannot be granted to a litigant who suppresses material facts and approaches the Court with unclean hands.

---