Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant Mr. S.K. Pandey and the counsel for the State Mr. A.N. Singh, S.C. 8. 2. One writ petition CWJC No. 10016 of 2001 : Hardeo Narayan Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and others being filed, it was considered. By a detailed order a learned judge on 12 November, 2001 dismissed the writ petition with special costs at Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with the State Legal Aid Services Authority. Impugning the order on the writ petition a letters patent appeal being L.P.A. no. 134 of 2002 had been filed by the respondent no. 3 Sharwan Kumar Singh. This letters patent appeal came before this Court. Arguments had been addressed at length and, subsequently, counsel withdrew the appeal on 28 January, 2002. But this was not the end of the matter. 3. Now, the petitioner-appellant, who had filed the writ petition, has filed the present letters patent appeal against the same judgment and order of the learned judge dated 12 November, 2001. The learned judge has given reasons after having heard counsel for the parties and examined the record. The learned judge was of the opinion that both the respondent no. 3 and the petitioner-appellant had materially suppressed facts from the High Court. Broadly noticed, the learned judge had recorded that the petition was frivolous and suffered from material suppression of facts on the ground that (a) copy of the route permit of the petitioner was not made part of the record nor bare minimum details where mentioned in the petition to make out a prima facie case, (b) the petition did not disclose the period for which the permit was granted to the petitioner, the route and the schedule had also not been stated and (c) of an order referred dated 8 March, 2000 as having been passed by the Darbhanga Regional Transport Authority, Darbhanga, respondent no. 2, no reference was made in the writ petition that this order had been superseded by the order of 2 July, 2001. 4. In the circumstances, the record was writ large with concealment of material facts. 5. It may be understood in no uncertain terms that the writ jurisdiction expects that the citizens, who invoke this special jurisdiction of the High Court, are obliged to state the truth and nothing but the truth. 4. In the circumstances, the record was writ large with concealment of material facts. 5. It may be understood in no uncertain terms that the writ jurisdiction expects that the citizens, who invoke this special jurisdiction of the High Court, are obliged to state the truth and nothing but the truth. There must be no material suppression of records because if this happens then this Court will deny relief to the litigants who come with unclean hands. The writ petitions at the High Court are not decided on the basis of any evidence which may need to be taken subsequently but on the basis of pleadings on affidavits. The record of writ petitions rest only on affidavits which refer to State records which may be appended as copies of facsimile records. But the court cannot give any indulgence to any person whether a citizen invoking the remedy or the State answering the writ petition in return to suppress the record or manipulate records. 6. In the circumstances, the court is unable to certify that the learned judge has committed any error; firstly, in dismissing the writ petition and secondly, in imposing costs. 7. Dismissed.