Parallel proceedings and suppression of material facts can bar discretionary writ relief under Article 226.

Writ relief under Article 226 may be refused where a petitioner pursues parallel proceedings on the same subject matter, since such conduct amounts to forum hunting and abuse of process. The Court also treated suppression of a pending civil appeal as a material non-disclosure going to the root of discretionary relief, and applied the clean hands principle to deny equitable intervention. Because the petitioner had already invoked a civil remedy and withheld a material fact from the writ court, the petition was held not maintainable and costs were considered warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the petitioner having pursued parallel proceedings and being a stranger to the Tribunal proceedings; (ii) whether suppression of the pending civil appeal disentitled the petitioner to relief under Article 226.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the petitioner having pursued parallel proceedings and being a stranger to the Tribunal proceedings.

Analysis: The challenge was held to be barred where the petitioner had already invoked a civil remedy on the same subject matter and later approached the writ court. The existence of parallel proceedings on substantially the same controversy, coupled with the fact that the petitioner was not a party to the Tribunal appeal and no adverse order had been passed against him, made the writ remedy inappropriate. The reasoning proceeded on the settled principle that a litigant cannot pursue two forums for the same relief and that such conduct amounts to forum hunting and abuse of process.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether suppression of the pending civil appeal disentitled the petitioner to relief under Article 226.

Analysis: The petitioner had not disclosed that an appeal against the withdrawal of his civil suit was pending. The Court treated this as suppression of a material fact going to the root of discretionary writ relief. Applying the clean hands principle, it held that a litigant who withholds a material circumstance and seeks interim protection cannot claim equitable relief under Article 226. The conduct was also characterised as misleading the Court and as an abuse of the writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petitioner was disentitled to discretionary relief and costs were warranted.

Final Conclusion: The judgment applies the doctrines of alternative remedy, non-maintainability of parallel proceedings, and clean hands to refuse writ relief where the petitioner concealed material facts and sought to litigate the same dispute through multiple forums.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may refuse discretionary relief where the petitioner has pursued parallel proceedings on the same subject matter or suppressed material facts, since such conduct constitutes abuse of process and is inconsistent with the equitable nature of Article 226 jurisdiction.

---