Honble SHETHNA, J.–Ordinarily this Court does not interfere in a contract matter in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the parties are always relegated to the competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievances. However, later on the law was expanded by the Honble Supreme Court where the public institutions are there and where serious allegations of malafide are alleged in contract matters it is held that the Courts may interfere in such type of cases. However, this case is an eye opener that in ordinary circumstance in absence of malafide this Court should not entertain such contractual matters and it should relegate the parties to the Civil Court. (2). Law is also equally well settled that the persons who do not come before the Court with clean hands are not entitled for discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. (3). The petitioner has prayed in this petition that respondent Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation be restrained from taking any proceeding whatsoever consequent to the notice inviting tender dated 10.9.97 and it may also be directed to hand over the Project to the petitioner as per the contract underweigh. (4). It is also prayed in this petition that for any reason during the pendency of this petition contract is given to somebodyelse the same be declared to be invalid and be quashed and appropriate action be taken in this regard in this very proceedings. (5). Learned counsel Shri M.R. Singhvi appearing for the respondent Corporation raised several preliminary objections about the maintainability of this petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr. Singhvi also submitted that the petitioner with his conduct has disentitled himself from any relief by hands of this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution because he has not come with clean hands and at times he changed his stand according to situation which was not at all proper on his part. He also submitted that the petitioner had suitable alternative efficacious remedy of appeal of civil suit before the competent Civil Court and this being a contract matter between the parties this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner. He also submitted that for non-joinder of important parties no relief can be granted to the petitioner. (6). He also submitted that for non-joinder of important parties no relief can be granted to the petitioner. (6). He also submitted that after submitting a letter to the respondent Corporation he has no right to maintain this petition because in his impugned letter his only request was to pay 20 per cent interest on the amount. (7). Before appreciating the preliminary objections raised by learned counsel Shri Singhvi for the respondent Corporation few facts of this case are required to be stated which are as under:- (8). The respondent Corporation is a public undertaking of State of Rajasthan which invited tenders for transfer of mining leases of the Flourspar Development Project (in short `the Project) situated in District Dungarpur by a tender notice published in the news-paper at Anx. 1. The petitioner by his letter dt. 11.6.1997 shown interest of the Dungarpur Unit of the Project for purchasing the same and requested the Corporation to supply a copy of notice inviting tender. The same was responded to by fax dt. 16/18.6.1997 and the petitioner was called to come on 20.6.1997 for negotiations for the purpose of finalisation of the proposal at Jaipur with Rs. 50,000/-deposit towards `keenness money on or before 30.6.1997 (Anx.2). The petitioner deposited Rs. 50,000/-on 20.6.1997. Negotiations between the parties were held initially on 20.6.1997 but somehow or the other he could not remain present on 4.7.1997, therefore, by letter dt. 3.7.1997 he requested for some other date. However, by letter dt. 5/7.7.1997 he was asked by the respondent Corporation to revise his offer by 14.7.1997 and sent it to the Corporation in a sealed cover (Anx.3). The same was done on 12.7.1997 by the petitioner (Anx. 4). He gave his revised offer on 25.7.1997 (Anx. 6). Thereafter, by a letter dt. 5.8.1997 (Anx. 7) the petitioner was asked to submit his final bid which was responded by the petitioner by letter dt. 11.8.1997 (Anx. 8). The same was done on 12.7.1997 by the petitioner (Anx. 4). He gave his revised offer on 25.7.1997 (Anx. 6). Thereafter, by a letter dt. 5.8.1997 (Anx. 7) the petitioner was asked to submit his final bid which was responded by the petitioner by letter dt. 11.8.1997 (Anx. 8). At this stage, I would like to reproduce the contents of para (h) which is as under:- ^Q~yksLQkj dh yhts ,d o"kZ ds Hkhrj U;k;ky; jkT; ljdkj ou foHkkx vFkok fdlh Hkh dkj.kok yht VªkUlQj esa O;o/kku gksus ij gekjs }kjk dqy fn;s x;s Hkqxrku dk 24 izfrkr okf"kZd C;kt dh nj ls tksM+dj gesa fuxe iw.kZ Hkqxrku djsxk ckrsZa gekjs }kjk bl chp mBk;s x;s eky ;k dk;Z esa yh xbZ ,lsVsl dh jkfk ,xzhesUV ds vk/kkj ij gekjh tekjkfk esa ls dkVus dk vf/kdkj fuxe dks gksxk] lkFk gh gekjs }kjk IykUV dks pkyq djus ds fy, [kjhnh xbZ ubZ ekhujhA fjis;fjax dk Hkqxrku fcy o [kpksZ ds vk/kkj ij fuxe dks gesa vyx ls djuk gksxkA* (9). It may be stated that the aforesaid letter dt. 11.8.1997 was addressed by the petitioner in pursuance of the letter dt. 5.8.1997 addressed by the Corporation. (10). Coincidentally the respondent Corporation also wrote a letter dt. 11.8.1997 (Anx. 9) to the petitioner stating that the management has accepted his offer dt. 11.8.1997 about flourspar Project, Dungarpur and he was advised to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 lacs on that very day and it was also stated that he will be informed about the date for signing of the agreement. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited remaining sum of Rs. 14 lacs 50 thousand because he had earlier deposited Rs. 50 thousand. (11). It is the case of the petitioner in para 16 of the petition that ``A draft of the Agreement to be executed was then sent to the Petitioner vide letter dated 1.9.97. The Petitioner places on record photo copy of letter dated 1.9.97 as also the photo copy of the draft agreement. These are marked as ``Annexure-11. This fact was emphatically denied by the respondent Corporation in para 16 of its reply affidavit that such a private agreement was never sent to the petitioner by a letter dt. 1.9.1997 failing which a request was made to take appropriate action against him. (12). These are marked as ``Annexure-11. This fact was emphatically denied by the respondent Corporation in para 16 of its reply affidavit that such a private agreement was never sent to the petitioner by a letter dt. 1.9.1997 failing which a request was made to take appropriate action against him. (12). It is the further case of the petitioner in para 17 of the petition that ``That thereafter has come letter dated 18/5.9.97 telling the petitioner that on coming to know of the decision of the Corporation the Government have also considered it and for various reasons, are of the view that the tender should be refloated with wide publicity and consequently the Corporation regrets that it is unable to proceed further in the matter and Petitioner will be free to re-bid after fresh tender notices are published. It was also said that the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs deposited by him is being refunded. This letter was accompanied by a cheque in the sum of Rs. 15 lakhs. Photo copy of this letter is annexed hereto as ``Annexure-12. In para 17 of the reply affidavit the Corporation submitted that this impugned letter dt. 5.9.1997 (Anx. 12) was issued with reference to the letter of His Excellency the Governor dt. 30.8.1997. It is also submitted in the reply affidavit that everything was considered by His Excellency the Governor and His Excellency was of the opinion that there was no proper and wide publicity and all the persons who could be interested in the matter might not have come forward which has resulted into great deficit bid and may cause great loss to the Corporation. Accordingly, the bid of the petitioner was not considered to be adequate and it was ordered not to be accepted by letter dt. 5.9.1997. This letter/order dt. 5.9.1997 was initially not challenged by the petitioner but same was challenged by way of amendment in the amendment petition but without joining State of Rajasthan as a proper party respondents. (13). It was pointed out in the reply affidavit filed by respondent Corporation that after the order passed by His Excellency the Governor in a fresh bid the amount was more than Rs. 10 lacs and thereby the Corporation was benefited and that was the reason for the Governor to go for public bid. (14). (13). It was pointed out in the reply affidavit filed by respondent Corporation that after the order passed by His Excellency the Governor in a fresh bid the amount was more than Rs. 10 lacs and thereby the Corporation was benefited and that was the reason for the Governor to go for public bid. (14). At this stage it may be stated that at that relevant point of time the petitioner had never objected to this before anywhere nor challenged the order of His Excellency the Governor and the action of the respondent Corporation. (15). The petitioner has himself stated in para 18 of his petition that thereafter the respondent Corporation invited tenders by advertisement in Rajasthan Patrika dt. 10.9.1997 so as to reach the evidence of the Corporation by 8th Oct. 1997 (Anx. 13). In para 19 of the petition an explanation tried to be offered by the petitioner about late filing of this petition on 25.10.1997 which was filed after giving a notice for demand of justice on 30.9.1997 (Anx. 14). (16). It is interesting to note that in para 19 an averment is made that ``.....The Petitioner chose to give a bid under portest. This was rightly brought to my notice by learned counsel Shri Singhvi for the respondent Corporation by submitting that the petitioner made an absolute false statement in the petition to that effect that he also chose to give a bid under protest. It was also denied on oath in reply affidavit filed by the respondent Corporation in para 19 that the petitioner never gave a bid under protest. In fact he had never participated in the bid and it was pointed out that in order to give a bid it was necessary for the petitioner to obtain tender and deposit the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed for it as mentioned in the advertisement whereas the petitioner had never done so. (17). It is the case of the respondent Corporation that the petitioner has not reproduced the correct and complete copy of the letter dt. 5.9.1997 which is annexed as Anx. 12 to the petition. The correct copy of the same has been filed along with the reply affidavit as Anx. R-6 by the Corporation. The foot note of letter dt. (17). It is the case of the respondent Corporation that the petitioner has not reproduced the correct and complete copy of the letter dt. 5.9.1997 which is annexed as Anx. 12 to the petition. The correct copy of the same has been filed along with the reply affidavit as Anx. R-6 by the Corporation. The foot note of letter dt. 5/18.9.1997 shows that the cheque No. 243629 was also enclosed along with the said letter which was encashed by the petitioner before filing the petition. This most important and material fact has been deliberately suppressed by the petitioner in this petition. If the petitioner had stated this fact then perhaps this Court might not have even entertained this petition because the petitioner was no more interested in the matter as he had already encashed the said amount but later on he thought to take a chance before this Court by filing this petition and accordingly the petition is filed. (18). From the facts stated hereinabove one thing is clear that the averments made by the petitioner in para 16 of his petition that a draft agreement to be executed was then sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 1.9.1997 was absolutely wrong which is clear from the reply affidavit filed by the respondent Corporation. When the Corporation called upon the petitioner to produce such letter it was only tried to be explained by the petitioner in rejoinder that the said letter was handed over to him by Mr. P.K. Jain, Secretary and Manager (Business and Promotion) in the draft agreement in his own handwriting. It was tried to be submitted by learned counsel Shri Mridul for the petitioner that this averment made on oath in rejoinder is not denied by the respondent Corporation in sur-rejoinder. (19). In my opinion it was the duty of the petitioner to state true and correct facts before this Court when he has filed the petition. When it was pointed out on oath by the respondent Corporation in its reply affidavit that the averments made in para 16 of the petition was wrong then it was tried to be explained by stating that the same was handed over to him by Mr. P.K. Jain. In my opinion when such an explanation is given it is nothing but an aforethought for which no answer is required to be given in sur-rejoinder. (20). P.K. Jain. In my opinion when such an explanation is given it is nothing but an aforethought for which no answer is required to be given in sur-rejoinder. (20). Another preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition was raised by Mr. Singhvi that having accepted the cheque of Rs. 15 lacs and having it encashed it was not open to the petitioner to make grievance before this Court for breach of any such contract. I agree with this submission raised by Mr. Singhvi because the petitioner had already withdrawn the offer by his letter dt. 11.8.1997 (Anx. 8) and his only demand was to get 24 per cent interest per annum on the amount deposited by him. The submission of Mr. Mridul was that offer was accepted, therefore, the contract was complete as per letter dt. 11.8.97 has no substance because the said letter dt. 11.8.1997 has no force as the petitioner himself had withdrawn his offer by letter dt. 11.8.97 which was addressed by him in pursuance of the letter dt. 5.8.97 addressed by the respondent Corporation. This petition is also required to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner made a false statement in para 19 of the petition viz. that he close to gave a bid under protest which was not at all true. When, it was pointed out in reply affidavit by the respondent Corporation and an explanation sought to be offered that it was under misconception that such a statement was made. Such an explanation cannot be accepted because without mincing any word the petitioner had stated in para 16 that he choses to give bid under protest. (21). In view of the above discussion this petition is dismissed on the preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel Shri Singhvi for the respondent Corporation. In this case several disputed questions of facts are involved in the matter which cannot be gone into and decided by this Court in writ jurisdiction, therefore, on this ground also this writ petition was also required to be dismissed. (22). Before parting I must state that initially the impugned order/letter dt. 30.8.1997 passed by the Governor was never challenged in the beginning in the writ petition and it was only challenged by way of an amendment that too without joining the State as party respondent. (23). (22). Before parting I must state that initially the impugned order/letter dt. 30.8.1997 passed by the Governor was never challenged in the beginning in the writ petition and it was only challenged by way of an amendment that too without joining the State as party respondent. (23). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The stay granted earlier stands vacated forthwith. Stay petition is dismissed. Under the interim orders of the Court the petitioner was directed to redeposit Rs. 15 lacs with the respondent Corporation which may now be refunded by the respondent Corporation to the petitioner forthwith.