A person invoking the jurisdiction of the court has a duty to make a full and true disclosure of all relevant facts, and the court will refuse to go into the matter if a false statement is made or relevant information is concealed.

AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.

1. The above petition has been filed by one Murugesan to grant leave to him to file the Writ Appeal against the order of a learned single judge of this Court dated 29.1.1996 in W.P. No. 5694 of 1989.

2. The Writ Petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein Sri Kundaramadai Ayyanar Koil, Sivagiri, represented by its trustee Arunachala Thevar to call for the records of the District Collector, Tiruneleveli, Kattabomman District, in Na.Ka. No. 7 49546/88 dated 20.3.1989 signed on 11-4-1989 and the consequential order in Na.Ka. No. 1603/88 dated April, 1989, passed by the Chief Administrative Officer, Fish Farmers Development Agency, Tirunelveli, granting the fishery right of Melakarisalkulam Tank to respondents 4 to 6 therein, and to quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents therein from interfering with the fishery rights of the petitioner over the Melakarisalkulam, Royagiri Village, Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District.

3. In support of the Writ Petition, one of the trustees of the petitioner temple has sworn to an affidavit wherein he has stated that the petitioner temple was granted the exclusive right to enjoy the fishery right of the tank under the name and style of Melakarisalkulam subject to certain conditions as per the order of the District Collector, Tiruneveli, in R. Dis. 25909/68 (g) 16.4.1968. He has further stated that the petitioner temple was fulfilling all the conditions stated in the order and there had been no notice of violation of any of the conditions at any time and that the said right has been taken away by the District Collector, Tirunelveli. According to the writ petitioner, the right to enjoy the fishery right of Melakarisalkulam tank was given to the petitioner temple permanently and the District Collector, Tirunelveli has passed the impugned order taking away that right without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Under those circumstances, the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the District Collector has violated the Principles of Natural Justice.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Addtional Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents, the learned single judge allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside the order passed by the District Collector, Tirunelveli and directed him to pass suitable orders after giving an opportunity to the writ petitioner. The learned judge was of the opinion that the order impugned in the Writ Petition could not have been passed without affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner when a right of fishery has been given to it permanently and even though there is a clause in the lease that the government can cancel the fishery patta at any time without notice, when the right of the party is being affected, naturally the said party should be heard before passing the said order.

5. The present petition C.M.P. No. 12626 of 1996 has been filed to grant leave to the petitioner herein to file a Writ Appeal against the order in W.P. No. 5694 of 1989 on the ground that he is the person aggrieved by the order made in the Writ Petition and that the petitioner and other co-allottees have filed a suit in O.S. No. 205 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, (which was later transferred to the District Munsif Court, Sankarankoil and re-numbered as O.S. No. 130 of 1996) and obtained interim injunction in I.A. No. 890 of 1993 (re-numbered as I.A. No. 173 of 1996 on the file of the Disctrict Munsif Court, Sankarankoil) restraining the Special Officer, Vasudevanallur Panchayat Union, from interfering with their fishing right in the Melakarisal Tank till the disposal of the suit. According to the petitioner, the said suit is still pending and the order of injunction is also in force and that the trustees of Sri Kundramadai Ayyanar Koil, Sivagiri, are also aware of the same. It is further contended that when the petitioner and the co-allottees were enjoying the