ORDER R.S. Dhavan, J. - The story connected with the present writ petition faces the Court with an oft quoted rule that a petitioner who exercises the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution must come to the Court with clean hands, failing which, equity, will deny him the relief. The truth of the case in the present writ petition only emerged after the State respondent filed its counter-affidavit, which was not replied to by a rejoinder. 2. There was a Pradhan, one Kesho Prasad Singh, who resided at village Sarai Bharti, tahsil Rasra, district Ballia. He says in his writ petition that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rasra District Ballia was making extra statutory demands to the effect that the petitioner ought to provide vasectomy cases and in case he does not then "he will be put to trouble." The petitioner contends in his writ petition that as he is a respectable person of the locality he declined to oblige the Sub-Divisional Officer and even offered to resign his office. 3. The cause of action for moving the writ petition arose when the collection Amin intimated the petitioner on 7th February, 1977 that there was a warrant of arrest against him as he had failed to pay dues which were otherwise realisable as arrears of land revenue. The amount mentioned in the writ petition is Rs. 12,572-50. The petitioner asserts, with responsibility and upon personal knowledge, that he has never been served with a notice of demand and further he has been regularly discharging his duties as a Pradhan. The writ petition further avers that despite asking the Collector, Ballia, the Sub-Divisional Officer Rasra and the Tahsildar Rasra for the details of the alleged dues which were being realised, he was not enlightened, on why the recovery certificate and the warrant of arrest had been set in action. On these allegations, when the writ petition was presented on the 20th April, 1977, a Bench of this Court in effect issued a writ of mandamus forbearing the State respondent from realising the sum of Rs. 12,572-50 from the petitioner by coercive measures up to 3rd May, 1977. In the meantime the State counsel was supposed to seek instructions. Apparently the instructions may not have been given by 3rd May, 1977 and the same Division Bench confirmed the ad interim order. 4. 12,572-50 from the petitioner by coercive measures up to 3rd May, 1977. In the meantime the State counsel was supposed to seek instructions. Apparently the instructions may not have been given by 3rd May, 1977 and the same Division Bench confirmed the ad interim order. 4. When on 28th April, 1979 this matter came before a Division Bench the record bears that the learned Standing Counsel for U. P. sought further time to file a counter-affidavit. The Division Bench did not appear too pleased in granting this further time, and saddled the State of U. P. with costs of Rs. 300/- for seeking an adjournment. This was on 28th April, 1979. Unfortunately the Bench could not anticipate the facts which were to emerge later in the counter-affidavit of the State. A counter-affidavit was filed on 3rd July, 1979. As already narrated the rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the petitioner has not been filed to date. 5. A reading of the counter-affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the Collector, Ballia, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rasra and the Tahsildar, Rasra, district Ballia recites another story and leaves this Court dismayed. To sum up, in effect the counter-affidavit recalls the tale of a crooked Pradhan. The Naib Tahsildar, tahsil Rasra, district Ballia, has affirmed the counter-affidavit and the recital is to this effect; The petitioner as a Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, Sarai Bharti district Ballia was granted a State Government loan on the 15th February, 1973, for Rs. 10,000/- for the purposes of installing a Gaon Sabha tubewell. A receipt acknowledging the loan recorded the transaction and the loan was disbursed to the petitioner through the District Panchayat Raj Officer District Ballia. The Gaon Sabha tubewell never saw the light of the day. Instead, the Pradhan utilised public moneysand installed a tubewell on his own land. When it was found by the State respondents that public money had been misutilised and abused, an action for recovery was taken by issuing a demand notice upon the Pradhan which was served on 31st January, 1977. This demand notice required the Pradhan to appear personally before the authority concerned on 3rd February, 1977. The Pradhan did not respond despite the fact that he had received the demand notice and consequently a warrant of arrest was issued against the Pradhan on 1st March, 1977. This demand notice required the Pradhan to appear personally before the authority concerned on 3rd February, 1977. The Pradhan did not respond despite the fact that he had received the demand notice and consequently a warrant of arrest was issued against the Pradhan on 1st March, 1977. Confronted with this warrant of arrest the petitioner rushed to this High Court with a manufactured story and sought admission of the present writ petition and also took protection under an ad interim order which was subsequently made absolute. The counter-affidavit also mentions that, at some stage, the petitioner had been suspended as a Pradhan. 6. The petitioner is, thus, guilty of invoking the jurisdiction of this Court and seeking its discretion by an extraordinary remedy with unclean hands, and with material suppression of facts. This Court has no hesitation in observing that he has been crooked in his conduct. It is for this reason that this court has laid down the law 25 years ago in the case of Asiatic Engineering Company v. Achhru Ram, reported in AIR 1951 All p. 746 (FB) that any citizen who seeks relief by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution must be upright in his conduct, must come with clean hands and ought not to indulge in material suppression of facts. Apparently the petitioner has violated the dictum of this Full Bench decision with impunity. This writ petition, thus, must inevitably fail and is dismissed with costs. 7. In view of the fact that the petitioner's conduct is reprehensible and he has at some stage saddled the State of Uttar Pradesh with costs of Rs. 300/-, whether it was paid or not has no relevance, the petitioner must face the consequences. The present writ petition was filed with blatant concealment of facts and on manufactured pleas on the averments made in the writ petition, which were prima facie accepted by this Court, recovery of public moneys was held in abeyance by an ad interim order, subsequently confirmed. Public money delivered to the petitioner in 1973 were irretrievable for almost 13 years, because of the present writ petition. Regard being had to the circumstances of the manner in which the jurisdiction of the Court was invoked upon the faith that the averments made in the petition were truth and nothing but the truth, the State was embarrassed. Public money delivered to the petitioner in 1973 were irretrievable for almost 13 years, because of the present writ petition. Regard being had to the circumstances of the manner in which the jurisdiction of the Court was invoked upon the faith that the averments made in the petition were truth and nothing but the truth, the State was embarrassed. Subsequently, the averments of the petitioner were found to be grossly incorrect and the affidavit on the basis of which the writ petition rested contained falsehoods. In such circumstances it is the duty of this court to protect itself and mitigate the circumstances. This can only be done if the recovery proceedings are set in motion forthwith and the loan which was delivered to the petitioner when he was a Pradhan for installation of a public Gaon Sabha tubewell is recovered with interest to date. In addition, the petitioner will pay special costs to the State of Uttar Pradesh for harassing the State respondents in answering a writ petition which was based on false averments. This special cost will stand at Rs. 500/- and will be realised from the petitioner, in case he fails to pay, as a decree. 8. A copy of this judgment will be sent by the Registrar of this High Court for intimation to the Collector, Ballia.