( 1 ) (A) To quash and set aside the order of the Appellate Committee dismissing the petitioners appeal; (B) Be further pleased to quash and set aside the bill dt. 4. 8. 1993 at Ann. 8. Committee without due application of mind 5. Appellate Committee appellate Committee"the petitioner at this stage requested that he be given a copy of the order. He was not given the copy of the order". Affidavit:i, Ram Avtar Agarwal, the petitoner hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath that what is stated in Para Nos. 1 to 7 in the memo of the petiton is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and I believe the same to be true and correct.

( 2 ) A person invoking an equitable extra ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 should come with clean hands and should not conceal the material facts. where the petitioner has made improper use of a regular legal process by which an unfair advantage is obtained by him to the proceedings over the respondents. "denial of constitutional remedy for the reason of lack of jurisdiction cannot be equated with bad faith or lack of bonafide. The scope of the two are different. In one a person may be honest and his grievence genuine yet the court may not be able to grant him any relief either because the cause of action or any part of it did not arise with the territorial jurisdiction exercised by the High Court or the petition may be defective as the person approaching may not be entitled to filed. That is something akin to lack of jurisdiction. The other, namely, dismissal for bad faith arises due to improper conduct of the persons invoking jurisdiction either before or after presentation of the petition. Even an unassailable cause or illegal and arbitrary order may fail to move the conscience of the court due to inequitable and unjustifiable behaviour or conduct in equitable jurisdiction. "that the proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution, which are initiated fo attracting the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, it is utmost important that the petitioner should come forward with clean hands. This Court cannot encourage the idea that a person is entitled to adopt dubious or dishonest or fraudulent means and make false averments while submitting a Writ Petition in this Court and further when his falsehood is exposed by the other side putting the correct facts before the Court it would not be proper to allow the petitioner to make his submissions on the merits of the case. It would be laying down a vary angerous principle in the conduct of human affairs if Courts of lav are allowed to be flooded with petitions based on false averments. This Court can help in its extraordinary jurisdiction to those persons who approach this Court with clean hands and if in a given case the Courts finds that the conduct of the petitioner has not been honest and free from deceive the Court may decline to give any relief to the petitioner. A person who adopts dubious means must suffer the consequences of his conduct. The law is settled that the petitioner are not entitled as a matter of course to a writ of certiorari and mandamus and they must be perfectly frank and open to the Court. They are under obligation to the Court to make full and correct disclosure of all the material facts in a candid manner and of they do not do so and supressed any material fact and thereby obtained a rule nisi or notice or ex-pane stay order the Court will not provide any relief to them on merits. In asiatic Engineering Co. vs. Achhru Ram, reported in AIR 1951 All 746, the full bench of Allahabad High Court, while dealing with the obtaining of an ad-interim ex-parte stay order by supressing the facts, has held that a person obtaining an ex-parte order or a rule nisi by means of a petition for exercise of the extra ordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution must come with clean hands, must not supress any relevant fact from the Court, must refrain from making misleading statements and from g