The clean hands doctrine emphasizes the importance of presenting truthful and accurate information in seeking relief.

1. This writ application is directed against order dated 8.3.2000 whereby and whereunder the application preferred before the learned Tribunal has been dismissed directing.

"The learned Government representative has put up the record.

There is an adage in English that he who seeks equity must do equity or otherwise whoever comes in any forum, must come with clean hands.

It appears on perusal of the records alongwith the Annexure which include amongst others, the records put up by the learned Government representative that the petitioner has not come up with clean hands. He has completely belied the truth the object being to harvest relief at a cheaper cost.

The petitioner has elaborately researched in his petition that he is personally cultivating the land which itself is a downright falsehood and this has not been accepted by the learned Revenue Officer Panskura-I, P.O. Panskura, District Midnapore. To galvanize his claim for personal cultivation. Thus, when we look to several Annexure, which include amongst others' the record of O.B. Case No. 125 of 1995, it is a rum our afloat in the air. The extract of the few lines from the judgment of the aforesaid case being no. 125 of 1999 wherefrom it appears that all the witnesses stated in favour of Barga cultivation and no witness/nor any document was put in support of his claim i.e. the personal cultivation of the land in question. The respondent no.7 claimed Barga right in his petition dated 3.7.1995 admitting the fact that he delivered the share of the produce without obtaining any receipt regarding Bhag produce. The impugned order as such, is not subject to interference from this end. Accordingly, the application is dismissed."

2. The learned Tribunal finally appears to have not analysed the materials on record with a view to arriving at a finding that the respondent no.7 was a bargadar. In the instant case, the respondent no.7 being a member of the family even be a presumption in terms of section 21 (B) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act cannot be drawn. Only because certain allegations had been made in the instant application, same by itself could not have been taken to be sacrosanit nor in absence of any material, any finding of fact could be arrived at that the respondent no.7 is a bargadar. As indicated hereinbefore, for the said purpose it was obligatory on the part of the learned Tribunal to consider the materials on record and arrive at a finding of fact.

3. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in the case of Smt. Sari Mahanti vs. Ghauiram Mahata, reported in 101 CWN 100.

4. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for consideration of the matter afresh.

Impugned order set aside.