JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. Naina Saraf and Mr. Mohd. Rafiq, Additional Advocate General as well as Miss Sumitra Goyal, Government Advocate. 2. Perused the averments made in the instant writ petition and also the averments made in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99. 3. From the perusal of the aforesaid writ petitions, it is revealed that the D.B. Writ Petition was presented in the office of registry on 3.12.99 whereas during the pendency of the aforesaid D.B. Writ Petition No. 6364/99, the present petition was filed on 4.8.2000 which was posted for admission on 7.8.2000. 4. When the aforesaid writ petition was posted for admission, a mention was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that as the petitioner intends to file nomination for membership of Municipal Board, Deoli, hence, his case may be taken up treating it to be an urgent. At the time of mention, it was pointed out that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by composite judgment rendered by me in case of Nathu Lal Jangid vs. State of Rajasthan and others (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2965/2000) , Vimal Chand Patni vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4631/98) and Pradeep Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 2348/2000), decided on 31st July, 2000 [Reported in 2000(3) RLR 661 . As next date i.e. 8.8.2000 was last date for filing nominations and the controversy involved in the writ petition was mentioned by the counsel concluded by my judgment mentioned hereinabove, the request for urgent hearing was allowed. 5. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner repeated her submission that controversy involved in the present petition is covered by my judgment dated 31.7.2000 without making mention that against the same order a D.B. Writ petition is subjudice. I believed the statement made at the bar and allowed the writ petition at admission stage whereby removal order of the petitioner from the membership of Board and debarring him to contest election for five years was set aside and case was remitted back to State Government with a direction to serve fresh chargesheet disclosing the evidence in support of each charge. 6. It is brought to my notice by learned Additional Advocate General Shri Mohd. 6. It is brought to my notice by learned Additional Advocate General Shri Mohd. Rafiq on the next date that order dated 7.8.2000 has been obtained by the petitioner's counsel misleading the court and concealing the fact about pendency of the earlier D.B. writ petition wherein the order impugned dated 29.10.99 in the present writ relating against removal of the petitioner and debarring him for contesting election for a period of five years was subjudice. It is also brought to my notice that Smt. Naina Saraf who is counsel in the present writ petition herself has filed earlier D.B. Writ petition No. 6364 of 1999 which was indisputably subjudice on 7.8.2000 on which date order was obtained from this court. 7. The aforesaid facts brought to my notice by learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Mohd. Rafiq shocked my judicial conscience and I directed the office to list the S.B. Civil Writ Petition along with D.B. Civil Writ Petition. This is how both the writ petitions are listed today before me. 8. A dose scrutiny of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 reveals that Smt. Naina Saraf has filed the aforesaid D.B. Civil Writ Petition on behalf of petitioner. It is further revealed from perusal of present S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3585/2000 that she herself has also filed the present S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3585/2000 during the pendency of aforesaid D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 on behalf of petitioner. 9. It is known to all of us that in order to avoid such situations, as has been arisen in this case, every advocate is required to give a certificate to the effect beneath the prayer of a writ petition that the petitioner has not filed any other writ petition impugning the order before this court. The certificate in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3585/2000 reveals that initially there was a certificate by the petitioner's counsel that no such writ petition has been filed before this Hon'ble Court previously but the same has been scored out which is readable by hand writing but it does not bear the signature of the counsel for the petitioner who is required to give such certificate. 10. Smt. Naina Saraf has tendered unconditional apology for filing the present S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3585/2000 during he pendency of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99. 10. Smt. Naina Saraf has tendered unconditional apology for filing the present S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3585/2000 during he pendency of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99. She also regretted that it ought to have been brought to the notice of the court at the time of passing of order dated 7.8.2000, allowing the writ petition and remanding the case to the State Government that questioning the order impugned dated 29.10.99 a D.B. Writ Petition No. 6364/99 is subjudice. It is true that if she ought to have brought to my notice that a D.B. Civil Writ Petition is pending then I would have declined to entertain the present writ and it ought to have been dismissed on this ground alone. 11. I am satisfied that Smt. Naina Saraf the learned counsel for the petitioner is seriously repenting for her mistake. To commit error is human phenomenon but its acceptance is divine which works in future as bulwark in shaping the personality of a man or woman. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle in mind the unconditional apology tendered by Smt. Naina Saraf is accepted with a suggestion not to repeat such mistake in future. 12. Coming to the merit of the case it is settled principle of law that where petitioner is found guilty of material concealment or misleading the court he is not entitled for equitable extraordinary relief envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution and his petition is to be dismissed on this ground alone. I do not propose to pursue the matter further in view of the unconditional apology tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner except dismissing the writ petition for misleading the court. 13. In my considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to prevent institutionalization of such mistake in future it would be proper to impose Rs. 5000.00 as special costs-making it payable to the Legal Aid Committee Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur would meet the ends of justice. 14. Consequently, the order dated 7.8.2000 is hereby recalled and the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of misleading the court with special cost of Rs. 5000.00 to the Legal Aid Committee, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur.Petition Dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. *******