Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. But for the candid acknowledgement of learned Counsel for the contesting respondent certain facts which were not disclosed in the writ petition, the course of this case would have been very different and perhaps a very harsh order would have descended on respondent Nagendra Nath Pandey. The Court had brought certain circumstances yesterday to the knowledge of learned Counsel so that he could check for himself whether the proceeding in the writ petition may be the result a judgment having been obtained by fraud and that the High Court in its letters patent appellate jurisdiction must avoid this judgment on the principle referred to u/s. 44 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 2. The contesting respondent apparently fond of litigation so much so that he has harmed himself in his employment He has invited departmental proceedings and he was dismissed from service. But because of the judgment in the writ petition he saw reinstatement. The travesty of justice is that today the record acknowledges that the contesting respondent concealed and suppressed facts from the High Court. By this time a public sector undertaking has been harmed and harassed and the High Court has been misled in writing judgment in his favour when the most crucial document was virtually kept away from the Court and it surfaces in this appeal on a affidavit of the National Small Industries Corporation Limited. The document was. always and at every given time within the personal knowledge of the respondent. The entire case or the litigation rests on this document. If the Appellant Corporation had not been a public sector undertaking the respondent would have been relegated to suit proceedings. 3. The issue brought in the writ petition: 4. The contesting respondent filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 4352 of 1990 making out a sensational case that the National Small Industries Corporation was harassing him and evicting his family members from a premises when he was transferred out from Bombay to Patna. The reference was to a flat which had been allotted to the contesting respondent by the Corporation as part of the conditions of service. On the other hand the respondent contended that there was no allotment and in fact, the respondent occupied the flat under a higher purchase agreement agreement, and if he continues to pay installment he would in fact become an owner of this flat. On the other hand the respondent contended that there was no allotment and in fact, the respondent occupied the flat under a higher purchase agreement agreement, and if he continues to pay installment he would in fact become an owner of this flat. Instead of the respondent being evicted from the flat the Corporation was rejected out of its case as if it had taken unfair stand. The departmental proceedings taken against the respondent for illegally occupied the flat on a extended stay were held to be illegal and unjustified. The dismissal of the respondent on the ground of a service misdemenour was held to be illegal. The departmental proceedings were quashed. Consequently, instead or being evicted the respondent virtually continued to hold possession of the flat. 5. The case of the Corporation: 6. The Corporation places facts before this Appellate Division that the petitioner-respondent concealed that he was a licensee under an agreement of leave and licence by which he had received an allotment of the flat on 7th August 1976. The respondent could live in the flat as long as he was posted in Bombay and in the event of his service being transferred out of Bombay he was to forthwith hand over possession of the premises to the Corporation. The respondent concealed this document in the writ petition. 7. As observed at the rising of the Court yesterday the Court cautioned learned Counsel for the contesting respondent that he may see the record and then submit his defence, accordingly. 8. Today, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent Mr. R.N. Mukhopadhaya submitted that he can hardly submit more as he has verified from the contesting respondent who now acknowledges that the 7th October 1976 allotment order, in fact, does bind him. On the basis of this document (a he had been allotted a flat as a license and (b) upon being transferred out of Bombay he was to hand over possession of the flat to the Corporation. Further. Mr. R. N. Mukhopadhaya submitted that the respondent faced eviction proceeding in Bombay which resulted in a decree of eviction and the flat was possessed by the Corporation in the year 1991. 9. The question is that exactly would the High Court decide in this letters patent appeal on false pleas. With facts acknowledged, today, can the judgment on the writ petition stand? The answer is no. 10. 9. The question is that exactly would the High Court decide in this letters patent appeal on false pleas. With facts acknowledged, today, can the judgment on the writ petition stand? The answer is no. 10. Now the Court has to contemplate for itself how it was not cautious in protecting itself when the petitioner-respondent came with unclean hands and kept away real facts in the writ proceeding. The respondent petitioner declared that he was na underdog, took sympathy from the High Court and received a judgment in his favour, instead the Corporation was made out to be a villain. If the Court were to punish the contesting respondent today it would be like a flogging a dead horse. The respondent has retired. He had himself punished with an order of dismissal. Though reinstated on the judgment of the writ petition, which today has turned out to be incorrect as the correct facts were not given by the respondent-petitioner. The contesting respondent, Nagendra Nath Pandey is not a honourable man, to have spoke untruths in High Courts equity and prerogative writ jurisdiction. In future for its own protection the High Court will have to reconsider as to how much of its writ jurisdiction should be made available so easily when a civil suit may, in fact, be the appropriate remedy. 11. This is a very unfortunate case that the stand of the contesting respondent prejudiced the course of the departmental proceedings with falsehood to obtain a monetary advantage and, further, this continued falsehood obstructed and interfered with judicial proceedings resulting in an incorrect decision. But for the submission made by the learned Counsel for this respondent today the Court would have proceeded in proceedings for criminal contempt. 12. In so far as the Corporation is concerned it will be entitled to all remedies available to it under civil or criminal law to seek redress. 13. The appeal is allowed with special costs against respondent Nagendra Nath Pandey standing at Rs. 5000 (five thousand). The judgment dated 29-2-1996 passed in CWJC No. 4352 of 1990 is quashed.