JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed, claiming to be in public interest, with a prayer that the second cancelled fair price shop be allotted to someone else and the authorities concerned be directed to investigate the issue regarding corruption in allotment of fair price shop in favour of respondent No. 3.

2. The petitioner, who appears in person, claims that he is a Software Engineer, based at Hyderabad, however, his parents and other family members reside in village. He is arguing his case through VC from Hyderabad.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Writ - Public Interest Litigation No. 1 of 2022 raising the issue regarding the same fair price shop. The same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated January 18, 2022. It was further submitted that there is one FIR registered against the petitioner on the complaint filed by respondent No. 3 as Case Crime No. 131 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 IPC at Police Station Bardah, District Azamgarh in which even charge-sheet has been filed.

4. The submission is that the aforesaid facts have not been disclosed in the present petition.

5. He further submitted that the petitioner has not disclosed his credentials in terms of sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the High Court Rules.

6. The petitioner, who appeared in person (through VC), in response to the submissions so advanced, submitted that he is not required to disclose the filing of earlier writ petitions as the same do not relate to the cause of action in question. Regarding criminal case registered against him on the complaint of respondent No. 3, he submitted that the said information was also not required to be furnished as, in the PIL, relief was claimed against the State and not against respondent No. 3.

7. After hearing the petitioner, who appeared in person and learned counsel for the respondents, in our opinion, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on account of concealment of material facts from this Court and also for non-disclosure of his credentials as required in terms of the High Court Rules. Further, respondent No. 3 has been impleaded as a party against whom there are specific allegations made by the petitioner. Even a prayer has also been made for a direction to the authorities to investigate the allegation of corruption in allotment of fair price shop in favour of respondent No. 3 but, still, the fact that FIR got registered by respondent No. 3 against the petitioner in which even a charge-sheet has also been filed, has not been disclosed in the present petition. Further, as submitted by the petitioner, the fact that a cross-case bearing Case Crime No. 132 of 2021 was also registered against respondent No. 3 on a complaint made by him, has also not been disclosed in the present petition.

8. The issue regarding approaching the Court by concealing the facts has been examined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on number of occasions and it has been opined that the same is polluting the stream of justice.

9. In Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India, (2011) 6 SCC 145, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while declining relief to the petitioners therein, who did not approach the Court with clean hands, opined as under :

''18. ... In our view, the appellants deserve to be non suited because they have not approached the Court with clean hands. The plea of inadvertent mistake put forward by the learned senior counsel for the appellants and their submission that the Court may take lenient view and order regularisation of the admissions already made sounds attractive but does not merit acceptance. Each of the appellants consciously made a statement that it had been granted recognition by the NCTE, which necessarily implies that recognition was granted in terms of Section 14 of the Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the 2007 Regulations. Those managing the affairs of the appellants do not belong to the category of