Suppression of material facts and res judicata barred writ relief, with breach of interim conditions adding an independent ground.

A writ petitioner seeking Article 226 relief must make full disclosure of all material facts; suppression of an earlier final decision on the same controversy justified dismissal because it went to maintainability and candour. The Court also held that the prior writ decision on whether the equipment fell within the tax net had attained finality and operated as res judicata, barring -litigation of the same issue. Non-compliance with the interim direction to deposit current taxes furnished an additional independent ground to refuse relief. The tax demands and recovery measures were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitions were liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts and failure to approach the writ court with candour; (ii) whether the earlier final decision on the same controversy operated as res judicata in the present writ petitions; (iii) whether non-compliance with the interim order furnished an additional ground for dismissal.

Issue (i): Whether the petitions were liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts and failure to approach the writ court with candour.

Analysis: The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is extraordinary and discretionary, and a litigant seeking such relief must make full and fair disclosure of all material facts. The record showed that earlier petitions filed by the same company on the same controversy had been decided on merits, but that fact was not disclosed in the present petitions. The Court treated that omission as material because it went to the root of the relief sought and had a direct bearing on the maintainability of the petitions.

Conclusion: The petitions were liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts, against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier final decision on the same controversy operated as res judicata in the present writ petitions.

Analysis: The same legal question, namely whether the machines and crawler-mounted equipment fell within the tax net as motor vehicles or construction equipment vehicles, had already been decided on merits in earlier writ proceedings between the same parties. That earlier judgment had attained finality and was binding. The Court held that the principle of finality applies in writ proceedings as well, and a matter once finally determined cannot be reopened in a subsequent petition on the same controversy.

Conclusion: The present petitions were barred by res judicata, against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether non-compliance with the interim order furnished an additional ground for dismissal.

Analysis: The interim order required deposit of current taxes during the pendency of the petitions. The Court found that the order was not complied with in the majority of the petitions. A party who secures interim protection must honour the conditions attached to it, and failure to do so is a valid basis for refusing relief.

Conclusion: Non-compliance with the interim order furnished an additional ground to dismiss the petitions, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed on multiple independent grounds, namely suppression of material facts, bar of res judicata, and breach of interim conditions, and the tax demands and recovery measures were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petitioner who suppresses material facts and seeks to reopen a controversy already finally decided on merits is not entitled to discretionary relief under Article 226, and failure to comply with conditions of interim protection independently justifies dismissal.

---