Pritam Attri V. Union of India and Indian Oil Corporation Limited

LPA/337/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Pritam Attri, the appellant, who contested the decision of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (respondent No.2) regarding the selection process for LPG distributorship at Chail Chowk, District Mandi. The appellant argued that the advertisement for the distributorship was faulty as it referred to 'Chail Chowk', which he claimed was merely an intersection and not a specific location. The court, however, found that 'Chail Chowk' is a recognized place with various establishments and that the land offered by the appellant was not at the advertised location but in a different village, Ghayan. The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, leading to the filing of this appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 816220 (HC-HIMACHAL_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited, R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commrs, Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, Manohar Lal (Dead) By Lrs. v. Ugrasen, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan and another
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: BALRAM SHARMA; K D SOOD; HET RAM
• Assessee Lawyers: MOHAN SHARMA
• Keywords: Field verification; LPG Distributorship; Misrepresentation; Writ petition; Draw of Lots

Judgement Text

"2024:HHC:13279 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 337/2024 Decided on : 27.11.2024 Pritam Attri …..Appellant Versus Union of India and Anr. ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant: Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajender Thakur, Central Standing Counsel, for respondent No.1. Mr. K.D. Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Het Ram, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ___________________________________________________________________________ Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice (oral) The writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Writ Court, constraining him to file the instant appeal. The parties herein shall be referred to as the “ petitioner” and “respondents”. 2 The facts of the case are that respondent No.2-Indian Oil Corporation Limited issued an advertisement on 13.08.2017 inviting applications from eligible candidates for selection of LPG Distributors for various locations in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Court is concerned 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2024:HHC:13279 with location “Chail Chowk in District Mandi” which figured at Sr. No.38 of the advertisement and relevant portion whereof reads as under : fgekpy izns”k jkT; esa ,yihth forjdksa dh fu;qfDr gsrq lwpuk dze la rsy daiuh LFkku ¼tgka ykxw gks] ogka LFkkuh; fooj.k ds lkFk½ Xkzke iapk;r CykWd ftyk Js.kh Ckktkj dk izdkj@ ,yihth fMLVªhC;wVjf”ki &:cZu@xzkeh.k @nqxZe {ks=h; forjd izfrHkwfr jkf”k ¼yk[k es½ ekdsZfVax Iyku 38- vkbZvkslh pSypkSd pSypkSd Xkksgj e.Mh vksiu nqxZe 4 2017-18 3 The petitioner submitted his online application to respondent No.2 on 12.09.2017 for the aforesaid location. Even though the petitioner applied for location of Chail Chowk, but the land offered by him was in village Ghayan, Post Office Chail Chowk, Tehsil Chachyot, District Mandi. 4 Respondent No.2 held draw of lots on 11.01.2018 for selection of LPG Distributorship at the advertised location, i.e. Chail Chowk. The petitioner emerged successful in draw of lots and was accordingly informed on 12.01.2018. The communication dated 12.01.2018 also mandated completion of several codal formalities including field verification. The petitioner completed the codal formalities and also furnished the requisite documents. In all the documents, description of land offered by him for LPG distributorship was given as Village Ghayan, Post Office Chail Chowk, Tehsil Chachyot, District Mandi. 5 The respondents carried out field verification of the information supplied by the petitioner in his application and observed that the land offered by him, i.e. Khasra No.121, Village Ghayan, Tehsil Chachyot, 3 2024:HHC:13279 District Mandi, was not within the “village limits as per the advertised location”. This was duly conveyed to the petitioner on 02.02.2018, when the petitioner was also informed that in terms of the brochure for selection of LPG distributorship, in case the offered land for godown/showroom by the selected candidate is not found meeting the eligibility conditions/ requirements as stipulated in the advertisement/brochure/application at the field verification stage, the selected candidate can offer an alternate land. However, this land should be owned by the candidate/member of the family unit etc. as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement. The petitioner was granted such option to propose an alternate land, as per the required dimensions in line with the policy guidelines, owned by him or leased to him or his family members as on 12.09.2017 as per advertisement. Such offer was open to him. The petitioner did not offer any alternate land, rather disputed the position taken by respondent No.2 to the effect that the land offered by him was not as per the advertised location and ultimately, he preferred representations dated 06.02.2018 and 16.02.2018. 6 Respondent No.2 on 23.03.2018, sent a communication to the petitioner reiterating therein that the land offered by him was in Village Ghayan, which did not fall in the advertised location Chail Chowk. He was further informed that he had not offered any alternate land as per the advertisement, therefore, his selection for the subject location had been cancelled in accordance with law and that respondent No.2 had intended to 4 2024:HHC:13279 conduct fresh draw of lots. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the writ petition for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the letter dated 02.02.2018 i.e. Annexure P-6 and letter dated 03.03.2018 (Annexure P-10) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondent No.2 may kindly be ordered to implement the order/letter dated 12.01.2018 (Annexure P-3) as the present petitioner is fulfilling all the criteria to be selected as the distributor of LPG (Durgam Kshetriy Vitarak) in Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk, District Mandi, H.P. ii) That the respondents may kindly be restrained from conducting the fresh draw of lots going to be held on 06.03.2018 at Institute of Engineer, Nigam Vihar, Shimla at 12.20 hrs. iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to award the distributorship of LPG Gram Panchayat, Chail Chowk, District Mandi to the petitioner in view of the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove.” 7 On 06.03.2018, the learned Writ Court directed that “online computerized draw of lots may continue, but its outcome shall not be finalized without the permission of the Court”. 8 On 08.10.2018, learned Writ Court passed further order that fresh draw of lots shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Respondent No.2-Corporation was also directed to consider the alternative site offered by the petitioner as also the site, which might be offered by the person, who is successful in the fresh draw of lots and to submit a report to the Court. The aforesaid order reads as under:- “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the fresh draw of lots shall be subject to the final outcome of this writ petition. Meanwhile, respondent-Corporation may revisit the alternative site, being offered by the petitioner, as 5 2024:HHC:13279 also the site which might be offered by the person, who is successful in the fresh draw of lots and submit a report to the Court. Post on 31st October, 2018.” 9 It was pursuant to the aforesaid order that respondent No.2 submitted its report to the effect that during fresh draw of lots, the alternate site offered by the petitioner was though found suitable for construction of LPG godown, but since it was leased to him after the last date for submission of the applications, hence, it was decided not to consider the same. The report further states that during fresh draw of lots, one Sanjeev Kumar Jamwal emerged successful and during the field verification, the land offered by him at Khasra No.16, Mohal Chail Chowk, Tehsil Chachyot, District Mandi was found fit by respondent No.2 for construction of LPG godown. Accordingly, Sanjeev Kumar Jamwal was then impleaded as respondent No.3 in the writ petition vide order 06.03.2023. 10 The only ground which has been urged, with great vehemence, by Mr. Mohan Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant is that the advertisement issued by the respondents was faulty as there is no place known as Chail Chowk and it is only a “Chowk” that is an intersection and therefore, the entire process needs to be annulled. He would argue that even though there is a Gram Panchayat, Chail Chowk, but the same is consisting of villages namely (1) Chail; (2) Kadao; (3) Ghayan and this Gram Panchayat is also consisting of seven wards (1) Chail-1; Chail-2; Chail-3; Kadao-1; Kadao-2; Kadao-3 and Ghayan. There is no place specifically with the name 6 2024:HHC:13279 of Chail Chowk. In fact, there is an intersection connecting the different areas like, Tattapani-Karsog, Gohar-Janjheli, Mandi-Moviseri etc. 11 We repeatedly warned the learned counsel for the petitioner that such contention in the teeth of the findings of the learned Writ Court would only invite imposition of heavy costs and he was at liberty to argue any other point. 12 Here, it shall be apt to refer to the findings recorded by the learned Writ Court as contained in para 5(i) to 5(iii) of the impugned order which reads as under: - 5(i). The advertisement was issued by respondent No.2 for award of LPG distributorship, clearly indicating that the place advertised was Chail Chowk; Gram Panchayat was Chail Chowk; Block was Gohar, District was Mandi, category was open and; Distributorship was under Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak policy. The advertisement does not make any mention of revenue village. The advertisement clearly makes out that place Chail Chowk had been advertised for setting up LPG Distributorship. 5(ii). The land offered by the petitioner was in Village Ghayan, which is stated to be one of the three villages constituting Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk. As per the case set up by the petitioner and the documents placed on record, the land so offered by him was at 400 meters distance from the building of Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk. There may not be any separate revenue village Chail Chowk, however, Chail Chowk is a separate place and distinct from Village Ghayan. The documents placed on record by the respondents under the aforesaid applications, are all clear indicators of Chail Chowk being recognized as a separate place. In terms of the pleadings in the applications, there are shops and commercial establishments at place Chail Chowk. There is a bus stop at Chail Chowk. A rain shelter of H.P. Public Works Department, a Fire Station of Himachal Fire Service, Banks, Post Office etc. are functional at place Chail Chowk. Number of 7 2024:HHC:13279 schools and other institutions are also located at Chail Chowk. Respondent No.2 has also placed on record following certificate issued on 16.07.2024 by the Tehsildar, Chachyot at Gohar, District Mandi:- “Certificate It is certified that Chail Chowk comes under Patwar Circle Kohlu of Mohal Chail/51. This place falls in the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk. Therefore, the certificate is respectfully submitted for further proceeding. Sd/- 15.07.2024 Village Revenue Officer Circle Kohlu, Tehsil Chachyot, Sd/- Distt. Mandi (H.P.) Teh. Chachyot at Gohar, Distt. Mandi (H.P.) 16.07.2024” Several photographs have also been placed on record by respondent No.2, evidencing separate identity of place Chail Chowk by capturing the commercial establishments, shops, rain shelter, Banks, Post Office, Forest Inspection Posts etc. These documents placed on record by the respondents during the pendency of the writ petition do not reflect confusion of the respondents regarding location of the place advertised for setting up the LPG distributorship. The documents are to dispel petitioner’s contention about there being no separate place in existence by the name of Chail Chowk. From the very beginning, the case of respondents No.2 had been that the land offered by the petitioner was not at Chail Chowk. It was at Village Ghayan. Village Ghayan is not Chail Chowk, even though village Ghayan may be falling under Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk. Ghayan cannot be said to be the place-Chail Chowk, which was advertised by respondent No.2 for setting up the LPG distributorship. The mere fact that respondent No.2 had submitted at some places in its reply to the petition that Chail Chowk is a separate revenue village, will not mean that there was any confusion in the mind of the respondent No.2 about consideration of the land offered by the petitioner vis-à-vis clear terms of the advertisement. 8 2024:HHC:13279 5(iii). The petitioner in order to succeed has to make out a case of his own in accordance with law. The advertisement is very categoric that the land offered for LPG distributorship had to be located at place Chail Chowk, whereas, the land offered by the petitioner was not at place Chail Chowk, rather, it was in Village Ghayan falling under Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk. Under the circumstances, decision of respondent No.2 in cancelling the selection of the petitioner cannot be said to be suffering from any error. The decision was in terms of the advertisement. It is for respondent No.2 to take action in accordance with law and the advertisement, keeping in view its commercial interests in issuing the advertisement for LPG Distributorship at Chail Chowk. 13 No fault can be found with the aforesaid observations as they are based on record. Otherwise also, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are absolutely fallacious. If there is a Gram Panchayat, Chail Chowk, office thereof must be located somewhere at least either in village Chail, Kadao and Ghayan, but this is not even the case of the petitioner. 14 According to learned counsel for the petitioner, there is a Gram Panchayat and the same is termed as Gram Panchayat, Chail Chowk, meaning thereby that evidently there is a place identified, which is known as “Chail Chowk” and the same is not mere an intersection as was vehemently contended by the petitioner. 15 That apart, the photographs appended along with CMP No.11768 of 2024 in the writ petition, which have been considered and taken note by the learned Writ Court which, clearly show that there is a sign board specifying the name of the place “Bus Stop” even with the name of “Chail Chowk”. There is another notice board of the Forest Division, Nachan 9 2024:HHC:13279 reflecting notice on behalf of Forest Post at Chail Chowk. Similarly, there is a rain shelter constructed by Public Works Department by the name of “PWD Rain Shelter, Chail Chowk”. Even there is a Sub Post Office by the name of “Chail Chowk” and it has a distinct Pin Code being 175045. 16 It was after considering all the aforesaid documents that the petitioner had been warned in making these unsubstantiated and baseless submissions but he did not desist from doing so and thereby has wasted the precious time of the Court. 17 Merely because the Courts as a matter of practice do not import personal knowledge into the matters does not mean that a litigant can be permitted to raise pleas that are not only false to the knowledge of the litigant but also contrary to the record. 18 In view of the above discussions, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. He has knowingly made fake, inaccurate statements and misrepresented his case with a design to gain some advantage or benefits at the hands of the Court. It is trite law that a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands, clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. This is settled that if a litigant has approached the Court with pair of dirty hands, the petition may be dismissed on this count alone. 19 Here, it shall be profitable to refer to certain bindings principles on the subject:- 10 2024:HHC:13279 20 In Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 1 SCC 560, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 16. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. 21 In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited, (2008) 12 SCC 481, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: - 33. The learned counsel for SAIL is also right in urging that the appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands by disclosing all facts. An impression is sought to be created as if no notice was ever given to him nor was he informed about the consideration of cases of eligible and qualified bidders in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court in review and confirmed by this Court. The true R.P.No.161/2015 (Central Ware House & Anr. v. Union of India & Ano.) facts, however, were just contrary to what was sought to be placed before the Court. A notice was issued by SAIL to the appellant, he received the notice, intimated in writing to SAIL that he had authorised Ramesh of Rithwik Projects to appear on his behalf. Ramesh duly appeared at the time of consideration of bids. Bid of Respondent 2 was found to be lowest and was accepted and the contract was given to him (under Tender Notice 4). The said contract had nothing to do with Tender Notice 5 and the contract thereunder had been given to the appellant herein and he had completed the work. Thus, it is clear that the appellant had not placed all the facts before the Court clearly, candidly and frankly. 34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost 11 2024:HHC:13279 necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. 35. The underlying object has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in the leading case of R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commrs in the following words: \"... it has been for many years the rule of the court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts--it says facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it-- the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts; and the penalty Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 1 SCC 5by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside R.P.No.161/2015 (Central Ware House & Ano. v. Union of India & Anr.) any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement.\" (emphasis supplied) 36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a writ court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating, \"We will not listen to your application because of what you have done.\" The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. 37. In Kensington Income Tax Commrs. Viscount Reading, C.J. observed \"... Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a 12 2024:HHC:13279 way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant's affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that the Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 1 SCC 5he applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in R.P.No.161/2015 (Central Ware House & Ano. v. Union of India & Ano.) motion by means of a misleading affidavit.\" (emphasis supplied) 38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play \"hide and seek\" or to \"pick and choose\" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because \"the court knows law but not facts\". 39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs. is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and \"clean breast\" cannot hold a writ of the court with \"soiled hands\". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative 13 2024:HHC:13279 jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court.\" 22 It has been held that suppression or concealment of material facts is not even an advocacy. After taking note of various judgments on the subject, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined as under:- \"24. In order to sustain and maintain the sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the court, when a court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does so at its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take the consequences that follow on account of its own making. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment by courts in dealing with such matters is either mistaken or lightly taken instead of learning a proper lesson. Hence there is a compelling need to take a serious view in such matters to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of justice.\" 23 In Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “7. In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI5 it was held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court is not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty- bound to place all the facts before the Court without any 14 2024:HHC:13279 reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court referred to the judgment of Scrutton, L.J. in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, and observed: (Prestige Lights Ltd. case, SCC p. 462, para 35) In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the R.P.No.161/2015 (Central Ware House & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.) court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.” 24 In Manohar Lal (Dead) By Lrs. v. Ugrasen, (2010) 11 SCC 557, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: - “48. The present appellants had also not disclosed that land allotted to them falls in commercial area. When a person approaches a court of equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, he should approach the court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. \"Equally, the judicial process should never become an instrument of oppression or abuse or a means in the process of the court to subvert justice.\" Who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim \"Jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem\", means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. (Vide Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand and Noorduddin v. Dr. K.L. Anand at SCC p. 249, para 9.) 15 2024:HHC:13279 25 In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan and another, (2011) 7 SCC 639, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is a settled proposition of law that a false statement made in the Court or in the pleadings intentionally to mislead the Court in order to obtain favourable order amounts to criminal contempt. 26 On the basis of aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, following principles may be culled out:- 1. A writ remedy is an equitable one. While exercising extraordinary power a Writ Court certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. 2. Litigant before the Writ Court must come with clean hands, clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. He should disclose all facts without suppressing anything. Litigant cannot be allowed to play \"hide and seek\" or to \"pick and choose\" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back)/ conceal other facts. 3. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or mis representation which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. 4. If litigant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly or states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent R.P.No.161/2015 (Central Ware House & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.) power to refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. 5. Such a litigant requires to be dealt with for Contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. 6. There is a compelling need to take a serious view in such matters to ensure purity and grace in the administration of justice. 7. The litigation in the Court of law is not a game of chess. The Court is bound to see the conduct of party who is invoking such jurisdiction. 16 2024:HHC:13279 27 Since the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, clean heart, clean mind and clean objective and has dragged the respondents to an otherwise avoidable and unnecessary litigation, he has made himself liable for payment of costs. 28 Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed with costs, which are quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner in the Himachal Pradesh High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund, within a period of 30 days from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Acting Chief Justice (Satyen Vaidya) 27.11.2024 Judge (Pankaj/Ankit) "