A petitioner seeking relief through a writ must act with utmost good faith and make a full and fair disclosure of all material facts. Any suppression of material facts or deceptive conduct will disentitle the petitioner from relief.

1. In this case the petitioner, Ram Saran Sharma, prays for grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Commissioner dated 31st of July, 1956, revoking the sanction for grant of a pistol licence and also the order of the District Magistrate dated 23rd of August, 1956, cancelling the licence.

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 7th July, 1956, the Commissioner sanctioned the grant of a licence, but the sanction was revoked by the Commissioner on 31st of July, 1956, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the revocation. As regards the order of cancellation made by the District Magistrate, the argument on behalf of the petitioner is on similar lines. It is contended that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause against the order of cancellation and the provisions of Sec.18 of the Indian Arms Act have not been complied with.

3. In reply, it was argued by the learned Government Advocate that no valid licence was granted to the petitioner in the eye of law. It was pointed out that the licence was actually granted to the petitioner on the 13th of August, 1956, though the sanction had been revoked by the Commissioner 13 days earlier, that is, on the 31st of July, 1956. In our opinion, the argument of the learned Government Advocate is well-founded and the licence dated the 13th of August 1956, that was granted to the petitioner was a nullity in the eye of law because! the previous sanction of the Commissioner was wanting. As regards the other point, namely, the revocation of the sanction by the Commissioner on the 31st July, 1956, the argument of the petitioner is that no notice was given to the petitioner to show cause and so the principle of natural justice has been violated and the order of revocation dated 31st of July, 1956, is ultra vires. It is necessary at this stage to reproduce the order of the Commissioner, dated 31st July, 1956, which is in the following terms:

"Subject: Copy of Commissioners order dated 31-7-56 on the application of Sri Ram Sharan Sharma of Mansi Khutia, P.S. Chautham, District Monghyr for grant of a licence for a pistol of non-prohibited bore. Commissioners order. Dated 31-7-56.

Order : My previous orders dated 7-7-56 sanctioning the issue of a license for a pistol of non-prohibited bore valid for Bihar to the applicant Sri Sharma, a copy of which was forwarded to the D. M. Monghyr with this office Memo. No. 7302J, dated 13-7-56 is revoked in view of subsequent report received from the D.M. Monghyr with his letter No. 3044 Res. dated 27-7-56.

Sd/- K. Raman, 31-7-56.

Commissioner,

Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur".

We do not, however, wish to go into the merits of this argument because we consider that the application must fail upon the ground that there is suppression of material facts by the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of a writ. To put it differently, there is want of uberrima fides on the part of the petitioner, and the grant of a writ being in the nature of a discretionary relief cannot be given in this case. It was contended by the learned Government Advocate that there was a deception practised by the petitioner. It was pointed out that the licence was taken out by the petitioner on 13th of August, 1956, though 13 days before the Commissioner had revoked his sanction. It was also pointed out that the licence was not actually signed by the District Magistrate but by the Second Officer, and it was stated by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that no order of the District Magistrate was issued granting licence to the petitioner. It was argued, therefore, that material facts have not been disclosed in the application and that the circumstances suggested that there was deception practised by the petitioner in obtaining the licence on 13th of August, 1956, from the office of the District Magistrate. In our opinion, therefore, the conduct of the petitioner is not above bo