The duty of a petitioner to disclose all material facts without reservations when seeking relief from the court.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent not to dispossess, disturb him in any manner from the vending site being Footpath, Khoka Market, Pushp Vihar, Sector-1, Saket, New Delhi.

2. The petitioner claims to be vending at the aforesaid site and in 2007, the petitioner applied for issuance of tehbazari licence. Thereafter, since his application was not considered, he approached Zonal Vending Committee by filing application no.9729. By an order dated 05.10.2010, the Zonal Vending Committee held that the petitioner was neither entitled to preferential allotment nor any direction of status quo was granted. The petitioner had relied upon receipts showing payment of fine dated 07.07.2002, 07.07.2003, 19.12.2003 and 21.05.2004. The petitioner also filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority seeking an order of status quo relying under the provisions of National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011. The Appellate Court had then directed maintenance of status quo with regard to the aforesaid site.

3. Counsel for the respondent has entered appearance on an advance copy and filed a short affidavit. It is submitted that the writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merit and has been filed giving false and concocted facts. Ms.Kalra has urged that on account of suppression of material facts, the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief from this Court and on this ground alone, the writ petition should be dismissed with exemplary costs. Based on the record, it is submitted that the site in question was earlier allotted in the name of Sh.Sripal S/o Sujan Singh/petitioner herein vide letter dated 15.04.2002, the site was sold by the petitioner to one, Mr.Shiv Kumar S/o Sh.Nand Lal and was subsequently mutated in his name vide Mutation Letter No.2218/AC/SZ/2010-11 dated 07.02.2011 under the policy in vogue at the relevant point of time. A copy of the application and mutation letter has been placed on record. It is thus, contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has already transferred and conveyed the earlier allotted site to one Shiv Kumar S/o Sh. Nand Lal on consideration and thus, he is not entitled to any relief.

4. It is also contended that after having sold the site for valuable consideration, the petitioner has been approaching different forums and seeking relief based on an allotment which is not vested in him as the right has already been sold for valuable consideration. It is contended that the claims made in the writ petition are not only false but it would amount to perjury and suitable action should be initiated against the petitioner in accordance with law.

5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to a weaker section of the society and thus, a lenient view be taken in the matter.

6. Original record has been produced and even otherwise, the transfer of the site is not disputed by the petitioner. We are of the view that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. The petitioner has suppressed and withheld material facts which are directly connected with the relief which is being sought in the matter.

7. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1, the Supreme Court, while dealing with a case where a release deed was suppressed, came down heavily upon the such tactics of litigants. It observed that the non-mentioning and non-production of the release deed amounted to “playing fraud upon the court” and concluded that:

“6. …A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.”

8. In t