O R D E R

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following reliefs:-

a) A writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued and thereby quash the order of transfer dated 13.07.2022 Annexure P-1.

b) A writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued and thereby directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to work at the present place of posting.

2. The instant petition admittedly was prepared on 15.08.2022 and thereafter filed in the Court on 16.08.2022. The petitioner vide order dated 13.07.2022 was ordered to be transferred from PHC Chharol to Civil Hospital Palampur, whereas respondent No. 4 was ordered to be transferred in place of the petitioner to PHC Chharol and joined as such on 14.07.2022 i.e.

more than a month prior to filing of the instant petition.

3. Unfortunately, the aforesaid fact does not find mention in the petition even though the same was prepared a month later to the joining of respondent No. 4.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that his client had been hospitalised but there is no document annexed by the petitioner with the petition in support of such contention. No doubt, the petitioner, by way of Annexure P-3, has annexed certain prescription slips but the same clearly noway go to indicate much less prove that the petitioner had been admitted in the hospital. Therefore, in such circumstances, ob viously, it cannot be assumed much less presumed that the petitioner was not aware of the order of transfer or the joining of the private respondent. The prescription slips otherwise do not suggest that the petitioner was suffering from any serious ailment which could have confined him to bed.

5. Thus, it can be concluded that even though the petitioner has sought an equitable remedy of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but has not come to the Court with clean hands. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law, is also a Court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches the High Court, it must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into the merits of the matter. (Refer: Prestige Lights Ltd. vs. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449).

6. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior Court must come with a pair of clean hands.

7. It is well settled law that a Court of Law is a Court of equity and in granting relief under Article 226, the Courts will bear in mind the conduct of the party, who invokes the jurisdiction. This principle emanates from the very nature of the power of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India i.e. a discretionary jurisdiction. Non-disclosure of full facts or suppression of relevant materials or otherwise misleading the Court would disentitle a party to any relief. A person, who approaches the Court for justice, must come with clean hands and not one, who deliberately attempts to deflect the Court from the true path of justice by leading the Court to injustice.

8. As observed above, since writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction, a petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed material facts in his petition. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and others (2004) 7 SCC 166, Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi and another vs. State of Gujarat and others (2007) 4 SCC 241, Arunima Baruah vs. Union of India and others (2007) 6 SCC 120, Prestige Lights Ltd. vs. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449, Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar vs. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar (2009) 9 SCC 310.

9. Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants, who with intent t