Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• Suppression of Material Fact Disentitles Relief: The Supreme Court held that suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies them from obtaining any relief, as it amounts to abusing the process of the Court by deceiving it (!) (!) .
• State Accountability: The suppression of material facts at the instance of the State must be viewed seriously, and the State is expected to take necessary measures to ensure such conduct does not recur in future proceedings (!) .
• Judicial Discretion and Equity: Since High Courts exercise discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and function as Courts of Equity, parties must place all facts before the Court without reservation; suppression of material facts allows the Court to refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into the merits (!) .
• Impact on Case Merits: The undisclosed facts regarding the reinstatement and regularization of the respondent were material because, had they been disclosed, the Special Leave Petition might have been dismissed summarily, and the delay in filing would not have been condoned (!) .
• Specific Facts of Suppression: The petitioner failed to disclose in their Writ Petition (filed in 2002) or Special Leave Petition (filed in 2004) that the respondent had already been reinstated in service via an order dated 10.5.2002 and subsequently regularized via a letter dated 21.6.2004 (!) (!) (!) .
• Contradictory Conduct: The petitioner took one stand before the Court questioning the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to direct reinstatement, while simultaneously passing orders regularizing the respondent's services on the ground side (!) .
• Exemplary Costs Awarded: Due to the suppression of material facts and serious delay/laches by the State, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, and exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- were awarded to be paid to the National Legal Services Authority (!) .