TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that from April 1986 to March 2015 i.e. for a period of about 29 years, the petitioner has remained posted outside her Home District and was never posted in her Home District i.e. Sonepat. The relevant extract from paragraph 4 of the petition is reproduced below :- "4. That as already stated above, from April 1986 to March 2015 i.e. for a period of about 29 years of her service career, petitioner remained posted outside her district and she was never posted in her home district Sonepat during the aforesaid whole period of her service career (sic.)." At the time of arguments also, the aforementioned fact was the main ground, which was pressed. A perusal of the written statement filed by the State of Haryana shows that since 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this case, the petitioner has made a deceitful attempt to mislead the Court and, therefore, we find little justification to give relief to him." Similarly, in a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Jai Singh Rathi and others vs. State of Haryana and others - 1970 AIR (Punjab) 379, suppression of facts was condemned by holding as under :- "20. It was pointed out by Mr. Nambyar that in their petition the petitioners have totally suppressed their part of the conduct both on February 4 and 5, 1969, in that they persistently disobeyed and defied the Chair and their conduct was not, in the least, orderly in the House, They also suppressed the fact that after the introduction of the budget the opposition walked out and took no part in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the identical issues of law and fact regarding which they claimed relief in this Court had already been already been conclusively decided against them in a civil Court to which they had themselves resorted. Nevertheless, they deliberately and conclusively suppressed this fact entirely from the writ Court. There can hardly be any doubt that if all these facts were candidly disclosed at that stage as the writ petitioners were bound to do, then the Court would have stayed its hands altogether or in any case would have been very reluctant and chary to grant any interim relief. This is not all. In the writ petition it was further averred that no other remedy was available to the petitioners. This has to be viewed in the context of the fact tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bona fide ommission. xx xx xx 13. Within this jurisdiction a Division Bench in Mr. U.C. Rekhi v. The Income Tax officer, (1950)52 P.L.R. 267, has held that if there is any supression of the material facts on the basis of which the writ is sought to be claimed the Court would refuse to grant the same without going into the merits. This judgment was then followed by another Division Bench in Narain Das v. The State of Punjab, (1952)54 P.L.R. 366, Tek Chand, J., in Shrimati Bhupinderpal Kaur v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab, (1968)70 P.L.R. 169, took even a stricter view in holding that there was no distinction between an averment in a petition which is a positive statement of fact and an affidavit which is swo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he court. A litigant is bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts"... [Emphasis supplied]" On a similar issue, the Apex Court in Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others - 2010 (2) SCC 114 has observed as follows :- "6. In Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449, it was held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court is not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court's jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution is duty bound to place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court the....