Clean hands in writ jurisdiction bars relief where prior Supreme Court proceedings were suppressed.

Suppression of earlier Supreme Court proceedings challenging the same levy and rule was held material because a litigant seeking writ relief must approach the court with clean hands and full candour. The omission of those prior proceedings amounted to a failure of full and frank disclosure, which disentitled the petitioners to equitable relief in writ jurisdiction. The writ petitions were therefore treated as not maintainable, and no relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed for suppression and misstatement of material facts, and whether the petitioners were entitled to any relief in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitioners had not disclosed the earlier Supreme Court proceedings in which the same parties had challenged the same levy and rule. The omission was material because the earlier matter had been disposed of by a detailed judgment. The settled principle applied is that a litigant invoking discretionary writ jurisdiction must approach the Court with clean hands and full candour. Suppression or inaccurate statement of material facts disentitles the petitioner to equitable relief.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable for want of full and frank disclosure and no relief could be granted to the petitioners.

---