JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - There is a College in the district of Muzaffarnagar known as Mahamani Malviya Inter College and governed by the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the regulations made in pursuance of it. The administration of the College is sanctioned by the Scheme of Administration duly approved under Section 6-A of the Act, aforesaid. As a consequence of the Scheme of Administration, Babu Ram Sharma, the petitioner, was the Manager of the College having been elected and given due credence by the Committee of Management the past tense is relevant. The petitioner received an order from the District Inspector of Schools based on a resolution of the Committee of Management dated 3rd June, 1987 by which the petitioner was removed from the office of the Manager. The District Inspector of Schools, following the resolution of the Committee of Management gave recognition to the motion of no confidence passed by the Committee of Management on 23rd June, 3987 and accepted the decision of the governing body and its recommendation that henceforth the Manager of the College would be one Sukhbir Singh Sharma, respondent No. 2. The petitioner contends that the fact that the District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 26th June, 1987 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) has approved Sukhbir Singh Sharma, respondent No. 2 to function as Manager, is an action which is illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner contends, that before the District Inspector of Schools approves, in effect, respondent No. 2 Sukhbir Singh Sharma to function as Manager, he is obliged to give an opportunity to the petitioner, failing which, the action of the District Inspector of Schools is liable (o be struck by this Court. 2. In reliance of his proposition learned counsel for the petitioner placed two orders of this Court. One is in Raghuraj Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur writ petition 7127 of 1987 ; judgment delivered by Hon'ble O.P. Saxena, J. and Hon'ble K.C. Dhuliya, J. The other was an order of 17 February 1987 in Committee of Management Palika Intermediate College, Bansi district Varanasi and another v. District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi and others; writ petition No. nil of 1987 ; delivered by Hon'ble S.D. Agarwal, J. and Dr.' B.N. Misra, J. None of these orders will apply to facts and circumstances peculiar to the present case. 3. The petitioner contends that there has neither been any meeting nor any resolution of no confidence against him so as to occasion the approval which has been accorded by the District Inspector of Schools, in effect, in recognising Sukhbir Singh Sharma as the Manager in his place. In the writ petition the petitioner has taken issues on any resolution being passed by the General Body of the College. The argument of the petitioner is that there is no occasion tor the District Inspector of Schools to interfere without any cause, and in any case he was entitled to an opportunity from the District Inspector of Schools before the signature of Sukhbir Singh Sharma were recognised in lieu of the petitioner. 4. It takes the counter affidavit to place the facts on record, which are not made an issue in the rejoinder affidavit by the petitioner. 5. Thus, this is a case of material suppression of facts. The counter affidavit places on record that the petitioner faced a motion of no confidence in pursuance of a validly called meeting to consider a charge against the petitioner. The misdemeanour was embezzlement. There was an agenda of the meeting, notices were published even in tire newspapers and as a consequence a meeting of the general body deliberated the issue whether a motion of confidence ought to be passed against the petitioner, Manager. The motion was carried by a majority in accordance with the Scheme of Administration. The decision of the general body was the resolution of 23rd June, 1987. It was sent to the District Inspector of Schools for information that in lieu of the petitioner, the next Manager would be Sukhbir Singh Sharma, respondent No. 2. 6. In the rejoinder affidavit these facts are not denied but evaded as being irrelevant. In fact, the petitioner had expressed in writing to the President of the Managing Committee, accepting that he had helped himself with funds of of the College as he was in straitened circumstances. This is his letter of 6 November, 1985 set on record in the counter affidavit as Annexure C.A. 1. The averment is made in Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit although the rejoinder says, in answer to this averment, that it has no relevance to the present controversy and that the petitioner continues to function as Manager. This is his letter of 6 November, 1985 set on record in the counter affidavit as Annexure C.A. 1. The averment is made in Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit although the rejoinder says, in answer to this averment, that it has no relevance to the present controversy and that the petitioner continues to function as Manager. The petitioner does not deny the allegations made against him in the counter affidavit. 7. In the writ petition, the petitioner mentions that he is not facing any enquiry. The details of the enquiry ate given in the counter affidavit. The petitioner apparently overlooked the fact when he made a reference to an interlocutory order passed in another writ petition, in reference to the same College, being writ petition No. 18390-A of the 1985. The in term order of 29 July, 1986 in that writ petition refers to an enquiry being held by a sub-committee against the petitioner. The interim order directs the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar in a reference to the aforesaid enquiry to ensure that the relevant record is taken from the petitioner and turned over to the subcommittee. Thus, it is on record that there is enquiry against the petitioner by a sub-committee of the College and that the petitioner was in possession of the records and was required to deliver the records to the District Inspector of Schools for being transmitted to the sub-committee enquiring into the charges The counter affidavit gives the details of the allegations against the petitioner, in effect, that there was an enquiry and that the enquiry was concluded by a motion of no confidence carried by a majority of the general body of the College. The resolution of the general body is the action taken against the petitioner by removing him from the post of Manager and in his place appointing Sukhbir Singh Sharma. This was intimated to the District Inspector of Schools. As already stated above, the petitioner has evaded reference to the allegations made against him in the counter affidavit. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that there is no enquiry against him or that there were no deliberations of the general body in pursuance of which a motion of no confidence was passed, is no longer in issue. 8. As already stated above, the petitioner has evaded reference to the allegations made against him in the counter affidavit. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that there is no enquiry against him or that there were no deliberations of the general body in pursuance of which a motion of no confidence was passed, is no longer in issue. 8. The question thus, is not whether the District Inspector of Schools has the power to, in a reference to the context of the circumstances, recognise Sukhbir Singh Sharma, respondent No. 2, as Manager in place of the petitioner, but one of examining whether the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. It is on record that the petitioner has materially suppressed facts from this Court only for the purposes of attempting to obtain an ad in term order; facts not given in the writ petition but brought on record of the counter affidavit and not denied in the rejoinder affidavit. The parameters of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution have already been prescribed by a Full Bench decision reported in Asiatic Engineering Co. v. Achhru Ram and others, AIR 1951 Alld 746. 9. The record as presented before this Court occasioned an ad-interim order on 10th July, 1987. Facts suppressed from this Court were brought on record in the counter affidavit which faulted the petitioner on his plea that he was not facing any enquiry nor any motion of no confidence on an allegation of embezzlement. The petitioner had, in effect, acquiesced to the position and lie accepted the allegations made against him in reference to embezzlement, that he had done so under extreme financial exigencies. Thus, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the petition was filed solely for the purpose of obtaining an ad-interim order. On the discretion which this Court exercised in favour of the petitioner on the basis of what the petitioner had contended but subsequently turned out to be grossly inaccurate, the petitioner cannot be permitted to debate the illegalities of any order which may have been passed by the District Inspector of Schools on the question whether he had the jurisdiction to recognise respondent No. 2 as Manager, when he has intentionally kept the record of the case away from this Court. 10. 10. This Court cannot give latitude to any citizen invoking the discretionary 'jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to facts otherwise than they actually are. This happened in the present case Faulty is against the petitioner. There is no option in the circumstances but to dismiss this writ petition with costs. As an interim order was passed on "correct statements made by the petition, and upon material suppression of facts occasioned the ad-interim order of 10th July, 1988, the costs will stand at Rs. 500 (Rs. Five hundred) only.