A petitioner must approach the court with clean hands and disclose all material facts; failure to do so can result in dismissal of the petition.

O R D E R

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

(i) That, this Hon’ble Court be kind enough to issue Notice to the Respondent State Authorities, so as to putforth their submissions/reply/record within a stipulated time bound period.

(ii) That, this Hon’ble Court be kind enough to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus/ like orders/ directions thereby to “Quash/Set- aside” the Impugned Externment Order Dated 18.09.2023 (Annexure P-10) passed By Respondent No:03/Collector District: Narsingpur (M.P) in Case No: 0033/Externment/2023 & Impugned Externment Appellate Authority Order Dated 16.04.2024 (Annexure P-13), passed by Respondent No:02/Commissioner, Jabalpur (M.P.) in Case No:0212/

Externment/Appeal/2023-24.

(iii) That, any other writ/direction/order/

command/ relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) To award the cost of the petition.

2. By this petition, petitioner is challenging the order of externment passed against him. In the Writ Petition, petitioner has declared that at present he is residing with Shri Paras Singh, House of Nanhe Singh, House No.14, Cholla Road, Behind F.C.I. Godown, Shankar Nagar, Huzur, P.S. Cholla-Mandir, District Bhopal. The petition was filed on 07/06/2024. Even in the affidavit, petitioner has given his current address as House of Paras Singh.

3. Respondents have filed their return and submitted that the current address of the petitioner was verified and it was found that the petitioner had already left the house of Paras Singh on 07/05/2024 and thus, it is clear that the petitioner had given an incorrect address in the cause-title. It is further submitted that accordingly the Police has also registered Crime No.608/2024 at Police Station Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur for offence under Section 14 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam for the reason that petitioner did not remove himself from the limits of restricted Districts after the order of externment was passed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. If a person fails to remove himself from the limits of restricted districts, then such an act of the person would be an offence punishable under Section 14 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam . Similarly, it is well established principle of law that if a person has not approached the Court with clean hands, then this Court can refuse to exercise its discretionary power. Whosoever approaches the Court for seeking equitable relief or otherwise, has a solemn obligation to candidly and correctly disclose the material and important facts having bearing on the adjudication of the issues.

6. If the petitioner is found to be guilty of concealment of material facts or makes an attempt to mislead the Court, then this Court can refuse to exercise its equitable jurisdiction.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Arunima Baruah v. Union of India and others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 120 has held as under:

"10. On the one hand, judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, on the other, it provides for a discretionary remedy. Access to justice is a human right. (See Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal [(2003) 6 SCC 230] and Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi v. State of Gujarat [(2007) 4 SCC 241 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 260 : (2007) 5 Scale 357].) A person who has a grievance against a State, a forum must be provided for redressal thereof. (See Hatton v. United Kingdom [15 BHRC 259]. For reference see also Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India [(2005) 4 SCC 649].)

11. The court's jurisdiction to determine the lis between the parties, therefore, may be viewed from the human rights concept of access to justice. The same, however, would not mean that the court will have no jurisdiction to deny equitable relief when the complainant does not approach the court with a pair of clean hands; but to what extent such relief should be denied is the question.