A writ petition is liable to be dismissed if the petitioner deliberately suppresses material facts and excludes vitally interested parties, thereby abusing the process of the court.

( 1 ) THE writ petitioners claim to have been carrying on the business of brick manufacturing business under the name of "raja Brick Field" in lands within the Police Station of Hasnabad since 1985. They have challenged at FIR dated 5. 10. 93 lodged by the BL and LRO in the Hasnabad Police Station in which it has been alleged inter alia that the petitioners had unauthorisedly converted the character of land and extracted and removed brick earth without any quarry permit and without payment and were liable to prosecution under section 40 of the Land Reforms Act, 1955. Rule 30 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rule, 1973, section 21 (1), 21 (2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and sections 290/379/447 of the Indian Penal Code. An interim order was passed on 14. 10. 93 inter alia restraining the respondents from arresting the petitioners and also restraining the respondent authorities from interfering with the business of the petitioners. This interim order was subsequently extended on 19. 11. 93 till the disposal of the writ petition.

( 2 ) ON 23rd November, 1993 twenty-two persons intervened in the proceedings and were added as parties. These added respondents then filed an application for vacating the interim order of injunction passed on 14th October 1993 as extended on 19. 11. 93 and for dismissal of the writ petition and for initiation of contempt proceedings against the petitioners.

( 3 ) BY an order dated 7th July 1994 the application was directed to be treated as the affidavit-in-opposition to the main application and directions were also given to the writ petitioner to file an affidavit-in-reply. On 25th November, 1994 a second application was filed by the applicants for the same reliefs as their earlier application.

( 4 ) THE facts that emerge from the pleadings show that the writ petitioners have filed this writ application in gross abuse of the process of court. The added respondents are the owners of the lands on which the writ petitioners seek to run their brick field business. Some of the added respondents had leased out their lands to the writ petitioners in 1982 for 10 years with an option for renewal. The option was not exercised by the added respondents. Despite this the writ petitioners remained in possession of the lands and continued their brick business. The added respondents made several representations to the authorities to stop the writ petitioners business. Being aggrieved by the respondent authorities failure to stop the alleged illegal business of the writ petitioners, the added respondents had filed a writ petition on 12. 11. 92 (C. O. No. 15228 (W) of 1992; hereinafter referred to as the first petition ). An interim order had been passed on the first writ petition inter alia directing the Collector North 24-Parganas to consider the representation of the applicants dated 28th April 1992 and to dispose of the same by 5. 12. 92. The Collector was also to submit a report to the court on 8. 12. 92 and to see that no statutory violation took place. The writ petitioners herein were the respondents Nos. 10 and 11 in the first writ petition. Not only were they served with a copy of the first petition but they were cognisant of all proceedings therein.

( 5 ) AS on steps were taken by the Collector pursuant to the order dated 12. 11. 92 in the first writ petition, on 12th January 1993 an order was issued directing the Collector to appear in person to explain why he had not carried out the order. The Additional District Magistrate appeared in court and prayed for time for complying with the order. On 4th February 1993 the Additional District Magistrate submitted a report before the court. The report shows that the Additional District Magistrate draw up miscellaneous proceeding and disposed of the matter in two stages. In the first stage the Sub-Divisional Land and Land Reforms Officers, Basirhat was directed to cause a field enquiry to be held on various points i