Judgment : The present action by R.Sarojini, the petitioner herein, is under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records connected with the order of the Superintending Engineer, World Bank Circle, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras-40, the first respondent herein, in Letter No.AS 5/14843/81, dated 10. 1982, cancelling the allotment of plot No.3/173 in Villivakkam Sites and Services Scheme and quash the order therein dated 10. 1982. 2. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board in collaboration with Madras Metropolitan Development Authority floated a scheme with the assistance of the World Bank to provide house sites together with semi-structure for the benefit of the economically weaker sections of people. The scheme was taken up at Kodungaiyur Village and Villivakkam area and was called Villivakkam Sites and Services Scheme Phase-1. According to the scheme and the rules in force, it is said, only one, either the husband or the wife in other words in only family is entitled for only one allotment, provided the applicant being a resident of Madras City for more than ten years, and does not own a house site or houses within the limits of Chengalpattu and Madras Districts. As per the scheme, a lot will be drawn for the allotment of plots and the eligible applicants will be favoured with allotments, subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions of allotment in clause 11 thereto prescribes that allotment is liable for cancellation if any information given by the applicant is found to be false. 3. The petitioner, it transpires, submitted two applications viz. 28,620 and 24,722 for allotment of plots on 11. 1981 and 11. 1981 respectively. In Application No.28620, she indicated her husband’s name as I..Veeraraghavan profitably employed as Supervisor in M/s.Sakthi Builders, Madras-18 getting a monthly salary of Rs.500. In Application No.24722 she did not indicate her husband’s employment and income but indicated her income as Rs.250 per month, as a clerk in the very same concern, M/s.Sakthi Builders. She is said to have been favoured with allotments in both applications and Plots 3/173 and 6/14 ‘A’ type in Villivakkam were allotted. The petitioner’s husband, Veeraraghavan, filed Application No.34294 in Kodungaiyur scheme mentioning that he was Job Typist in the High Court. The petitioner’s husband’s second wife Tmt.Sargunalakshmi filed Application No.28352 for allotment in Kodungaiyur. Both were allotted plots in Nos.4/26 and 3/ 232 in Kodungaiyur. 4. The petitioner’s husband, Veeraraghavan, filed Application No.34294 in Kodungaiyur scheme mentioning that he was Job Typist in the High Court. The petitioner’s husband’s second wife Tmt.Sargunalakshmi filed Application No.28352 for allotment in Kodungaiyur. Both were allotted plots in Nos.4/26 and 3/ 232 in Kodungaiyur. 4. The same address viz. No.20, Muthukrishnan Street, Kondithope, Madras-1, was stated to have been furnished in all the applications submitted by the petitioner and her husband, thereby indicating that both of them were living together as members of one family. However, the petitioner’s husband’s second wife gave her address as C/o.N.Balakrishnan, Plot No.1482,13th West Cross Street, Housing Board Colony, Vyasarpadi. All the four applications were stated to have been affixed with photo prints of the members of the family, thereby pointing out with certainty that all applications related to the members of one family. Thus, in effect, the petitioner’s family was favoured with four allotments. 5. On coming to know about the allotments secured by suppression of facts and false declarations, the first respondent cancelled allotment of Plot No.3/173 in favour of the petitioner with forfeiture of earnest money deposit with interest, giving rise to the present action. 6. She obtained interim relief of stay of cancellation of allotment on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice in as much as no notice was given prior to cancellation. 7. Subsequent to the present action, it is said, on 1. 1993 allotment of Plot No.6/14 in favour of the petitioner had been cancelled. However, the other two allotments, Plot Nos.4/26 and 2/307, in favour of the petitioner’s husband and her husband’s second wife respectively are still in tact. During the course of arguments on a direction from this court, the files relating to the various applications by the petitioner, her husband and her husband’s second wife, had been produced for perusal by court and the facts as stated above had been culled out from the said files. 8. In the affidavit filed in support of the petitioner in the present action, she suppressed the material fact of her filing two applications which were favoured with allotments, and she also made a misleading statement in paragraph 5 that the family was favoured with only three and not four allotments, taking advantage of the inherent mistake committed by the first respondent in the impugned communication. She also stated falsely that her husband and his second wife gave a letter dated 210. 1982 to the first respondent voluntarily withdrawing from the allotment. 9. The question that crops up for consideration in the background of the facts of the case is whether the petitioner, would be entitled to the relief prayed for in the writ petition. 10. The earliest Indian decision on the point is by Malik, C.J. in Asiatic Engg. Co. v. Achhru Ram, A.I.R. 1951 All. 746 (F.B.), wherein learned Chief Justice referred to the following observations of Scrution, L.J. in Rex v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner, (1917)1 KB. 486: "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-facts, not law, the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by 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 any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement. " Thereafter, the Full Bench went into the fact in great detail and stated thus in Paragraph 51: "A person obtaining an ex parte order or a rule nisi by means of a petition for exercise of the extraordinary powers under Art.226 of the Constitution must come with clean hands, must not suppress any relevant facts from the court, must refrain from making misleading statements and from giving incorrect information to the court, courts, for their own protection, should insist that persons invoking these extraordinary powers should not attempt, in any manner, to misuse this valuable right by obtaining ex parte orders by suppression, misrepresentation or misstatement of facts. Applying this principle to the present case, we feel, that, in this case, the petitioner-company has disentitled itself to ask for a writ of prohibition by material suppressions, misrepresentations and misleading statements which have been found by us above." 11. In Charanji Lal v. Financial Commissioner, A.I.R. 1978 P. & H. 326, it was alleged that there was "A calculated and designed suppression of material facts in order to secure admission and interim relief. In Charanji Lal v. Financial Commissioner, A.I.R. 1978 P. & H. 326, it was alleged that there was "A calculated and designed suppression of material facts in order to secure admission and interim relief. The Court was satisfied on facts that there was a calculated suppression of material facts, which if disclosed would have disentitled the petitioners to the extraordinary remedy, or in any case would have materially affected the merits on both the interim and ultimate relief claimed. The Full Bench after referring to King v. General Commissioner, (1917)1 KB. 486 and some other decisions and in agreeing with a long line of precedents and affirming a rule which appeared hoary by usage, held that the writ petitioners had by their own conduct disentitled themselves to the relief which they sought to claim. 12. A similar view was taken in G.A.Pillai v. Government of India, A.I.R 1970 Ker. 110 (F.B), wherein the petitioner had not made a ‘full and true disclosure of the facts but has’ in order to put forward his case of a violation of the principles of natural justice, chosen to suppress his representation and adverse order thereon. 13. The principle evolved in various decisions referred to above is applicable on all fours to the case on hand inasmuch as the petitioner has, as adverted to earlier, not only suppressed material facts, furnished misleading statements to the authorities, but also in a dexterous fashion executed such a’ feat before this court also in the affidavit filed in support of the application, in order to put forward a case of violation of principles of natural justice and obtained successfully interim relief with the oblique motive of squatting over the property all along, that is to say for ten years from 10. 1982, the date on which the impugned order was passed. Since the petitioner revelled in suppression of material facts and furnished misleading statements, merits whatever she may have, cannot at all be looked into especially when the discretionary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is based on justice, equity and good conscience. 14. In the circumstances, the writ petition, as such, deserves to be dismissed. The rule nisi issued is, therefore, discharged and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.