This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been

filed seeking following reliefs:-

"I. Issue a writ nature of certiorari to quash the

impugned order dated 17/08/2023 passed by the

respondent No.2 vide Annexure-P/1 in the interest of

justice.

II. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this

Hon'ble court deems fit."

2.

By order dated 29.08.2023, Government Advocate was directed to

seek instructions in the matter. Thereafter, a further time was granted by

order dated 21.09.2023.

3.

Shri Naveen Dubey on the basis of instructions received from the

authorities submitted that in fact petitioner himself had filed an

application pointing out that he may be considered for transfer to

Khargone or Khandwa or Harda. It was also mentioned in the said

application that he has already spent 11 long years. It is submitted that

although first priority of the petitioner was Khargone but after

considering the administrative requirements, petitioner has been

transferred to Harda which was also one of the options submitted by

3 WP No.21944/2023

petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner has suppressed this fact

and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed with cost. It is further

submitted that the signatures of the petitioner on affidavit and

Vakalatnama are substantially different from his admitted signature on

his application or representation as Annexure P/5.

4.

In the first round of the day, counsel for petitioner prayed for pass

over so that he may seek instructions in the matter in the light of

submissions made by counsel for State.

5.

In the second round, after seeking instructions from petitioner, it

was fairly conceded by Shri V.D.S. Chouhan that petitioner had moved

an application for his transfer to either Khargone or Khandwa or Harda

but he did not disclose the same in the writ petition.

6.

Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties.

7.

In the writ petition, it has not been disclosed that petitioner had

moved an application for his transfer either to Khargone or Khandwa or

Harda. Therefore, it is clear that petition has been filed by suppressing

material facts. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered

opinion that petitioner is guilty of suppressing the material facts.

8.

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

4 WP No.21944/2023

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.

12. It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse

to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression

must be of material fact. What would be a material fact,

suppression whereof would disentitle the appellant to

obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the

facts and circumstances of each case. Material fact

would mean material for the purpose of determination

of the lis, the logical cor