JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

(Via Video Conferencing)

The petitioner has filed this writ petition as against the Order No. 235 dated 03.06.2021, projecting as if his services had been transferred from Rudraprayad to Ukhimath. In fact, the reflection, which has been given in the pleadings of writ petition, is as if after the accident, which has chanced with the petitioner in 2017, after recovery from it, he was attached for the first time in the office of Rudraprayag by the order dated 26.05.2021, and within one month of his joining, by virtue of an order dated 03.06.2021, he has been transferred to join Ukhimath.

2. This is not the case at hand, as it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents, and he has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned order itself, which refers to the main order of transfer i.e. Order No. 837 dated 03.06.2021, by virtue of which, according to Mr. Piyush Garg, the learned counsel for the respondents, about 8 employees were transferred.

3. This order is not under challenge before this Court and the impression, which was created by the petitioner, was as if it is an attachment after the accident which has chanced with the petitioner in 2017, which was made for the first time, it is rather contrary to the records itself.

4. In that view of the matter, no solace or equity can be shown to such type of litigant, who doesn't come with clean hands before the Court and deliberately comes in a case with distorted or misleading pleadings, having direct bearing over a case.

5. The aforesaid concept that a party to the proceedings, who approaches the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has had to place all the facts on record, which are vital for the purposes of deciding the matter or any factor or aspect, which may have an affect or bearing over the judgments, which are likely to be rendered, the law casts a mandatory duty that a litigant has to place all those aforesaid facts. Suppression of a fact or placing a fact in a manner to extract an order in their favour, has been deprecated by the various pronouncements of the High Court including the one as reported in AIR (38) 1951 Allahabad 746, Asiatic Engineering Co. v. Achhru Ram and others, rendered by Full Bench, wherein, in para 51 of the said judgment, the aforesaid principle has been laid down, which has been extracted hereunder:

“51. In our opinion, the salutary principle laid; down in the cases quoted above should appropriately be applied by Courts in our country when parties seek the aid of the extraordinary powers, granted to the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. A person obtaining an ex parte order or a rule nisi by means of a petition for exercise of the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution must come with clean hands, must not suppress any relevant facts from the Court, must refrain from making misleading statements & from giving incorrect information to the Court. Courts, for their own protection, should insist that persons invoking these extraordinary powers should not attempt, in any manner, to misuse this valuable right by obtaining ex parte orders by suppression, misrepresentation or misstatement of facts. Applying this principle to the pre sent case, we feel that, in this case, the petitioner Company has disentitled itself to ask for a writ of prohibition by material suppressions, misrepresentations & misleading statements which have been found by us above. Two different proceedings were pending. One set of proceedings were initiated against the petitioner Company itself by the notice, dated 3-1-1950. Suppressions & misstatements about the residence of the shareholders & the directors, the places of business of the petitioner Company & about the numerical majority of the Hindu shareholders were clearly directed to give an impression to the Court that the petitioner Company could not possibly be held to be an evacuee. The allegations of personal interest &