Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J. This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents not to make any demand for the balance amount of Rs.4,99,706/-, which amount is payable to the identified affected individuals / Families in the District of Dindigul, pursuant to the Notification of the Central Government in S.O.671(E) dated 30.09.1996 and the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P(C).No.914 of 1991 dated 28.08.1996 and the Award passed by Loss of Ecology (Prevention and Payments of Compensation) Authority, Chennai dated 27.09.2001. 2. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner / Partner of Sabiha Leather Manufacturers is challenging the apportioned liability of the compensation amount of Rs.5,32,996/- payable by the Petitioner / Factory. For appreciating the points urged in the Petition, it is relevant to refer to the background of the passaging of the Award by the Authority. The Report and Award made pursuant to the Notification S.O.671(E) dated 30.09.1996 of the Central Government and against the background of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered on 28.08.1996 in W.P(C).No.914 of 1991, covers the District of Dindigul in the State of Tamil Nadu. There was no claim for compensation by the affected people or by any organisation on their behalf before the Hon’ble Supreme Court unlike the case of Vellore District. The Vellore Citizen’s Forum in their petition filed on August 12,1991, in the Hon’ble Supreme Court did make a specific prayer for compensation to the affected individuals in the Vellore District. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Judgment directing the Central Government to constitute the Authority identified five Districts in the State as the affected areas and directed identification of affected individuals and the amount of compensation payable to them. Interpreting the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court liberally the Authority has considered that August 12,1991, the date of filing of the petition by the Vellore Citizen’s Forum, as the date from which the compensation is payable, in the case of Dindigual District also. The detailed surveys for determing the loss of ecology were carried out in the District during the year 1999-2000 and the compensation payable to the affected individuals has been arrived at for the period from August 12,1991 to December 31, 2000. 3. The detailed surveys for determing the loss of ecology were carried out in the District during the year 1999-2000 and the compensation payable to the affected individuals has been arrived at for the period from August 12,1991 to December 31, 2000. 3. The Authority arrived at the compensation amount recoverable from the Polluting Industries as noted below:- Total Compensation payable to } the Identified – Individual } Families, numbering 6863 } arrived at }....Rs.3,93,38,568.00 Recoverable Compensation from } Polluting Industries towards } Reversal of Damaged Ecology }....Rs. 24,57,000.00 4. The Individuals numbering 6863 to whom compensation is payable are named in the Statement in Annexure I of the Report of the Award. The Authority has also identified total number of Polluting Tanneries for recovery as 76. Total amount to be recovered from the Polluters, name of the Polluters from whom the amount of compensation is to be recovered and the amount to be recovered from each of the Polluter has been listed in Annexure II. The Writ Petitioner who has challenged his liability to pay the amount of Rs.5,32,996/- has conveniently suppressed the fact of filing of Annexures I and II, showing the names of the individuals to whom the compensation amount is payable and the names of the polluting Tanneries and the amount to be recovered from each of the polluting Tanneries. By in depth study and analysis, the Authority has passed the Award. 5. As against the writ petitioner, claim is made only upto the year 1993-94 for Rs.5,32,996/-. The amount payable by the Writ Petitioner under two heads is as noted below:- Towards Reversal of Ecology .....Rs. 33,290.00 Compensation Award amount } payable to the affected } Individuals }......Rs.5,32,996.00 6. Challenging the Award and the amount payable by the Writ Petitioner, onbehalf of the Writ Petitioner, it is contended that the payment of share of liability of Rs.33,290/- towards Loss of Ecology and compensation would absolve the Partnership from further liability. Contending that the Partnership was dissolved in the year 1993 and that the Tannery along with the Factory shed was sold to Tmt.PL.Nagammai by the Sale Deed dated 24.07.1995 and that after the dissolution of the Partnership and the sale of Assets of the Partnership Tannery business, no further liability for the payment of compensation could be fastened to the Writ Petitioner. The main contention urged by the Writ Petitioner is that the demand of compensation amount of Rs.5,32,996/- for the period from 12.08.1991 to 31.12.2000 and that the partnership was dissolved in the year 1994 itself and that no personal liability could be attached to the partnership business – Sabiha Industries. It is also contended that the payment of Rs.33,290/- towards Loss of Ecology absolves the liability of the Petitioner. 7. We have carefully considered the averments in the petition and the submissions of the Writ Petitioner. We are of the view that the Writ Petition and the contentions urged are highly misconceived. By careful in depth study and analysis, the Authority has identified 76 Polluters and apportioned the amount to be recovered from the Polluters. Amount payable to the affected individuals numbering 6863 was also fixed by the Authority. As noted earlier, the Award was passed under two heads Viz., (i) Total Compensation payable to the identified individual families; (Numbering 6863) (ii) Recoverable compensation from Polluting Industries for reversal of Damaged Ecology. Out of the amount, admittedly, the Petitioner’s liability is assessed upto the year 1993-94 – prior to the dissolution of the Partnership. The Assets of the partnership and the Tannery along with the Factory Shed was sold to Tmt.PL.Nagammai only in the year 1995 which was taken note of by the Authority. 8. Pointing out that the payment of compensation amount towards Reversal of Ecology of Rs.33,290/-, on behalf of the Writ Petitioner, it is urged that with such payment of that amount the Petitioner is absolved of his liability and that no further liability could be attributed to the Writ Petitioner. Raising the same contention, earlier Legal Notice was issued by the Writ Petitioner on 11.09.2003 to the Member Secretary, Loss of Ecology Authority, District Collector, Dindugul and Dindugul Tanners Association. Prompt reply was sent by the First Respondent pointing out that the dissolution of partnership was in the year 1994 and that the assessment was only upto the period 1993-94. In the reply notice, the First Respondent has clearly asserted :- “...The payment of Rs.33,290/- is towards reversal of ecology. The Award amount of Rs.5,32,996/- was towards payment to affected individuals. Therefore, the payment of Rs.33,290/- cannot absolve the Sabiha Leather Manufacturers in paying the amount of Rs.5,32,996/- towards the payment of compensation to the affected individuals...” 9. In the reply notice, the First Respondent has clearly asserted :- “...The payment of Rs.33,290/- is towards reversal of ecology. The Award amount of Rs.5,32,996/- was towards payment to affected individuals. Therefore, the payment of Rs.33,290/- cannot absolve the Sabiha Leather Manufacturers in paying the amount of Rs.5,32,996/- towards the payment of compensation to the affected individuals...” 9. The Petitioner – M/s.Sabiha Leather Manufacturers sent a letter dated 01.07.2002 to the First Respondent requesting them to allow to pay an amount of Rs.4,17,449/- after setting off Rs.1,15,497/-, out of the total amount of Rs.5,32,996/-. By the Letter No.198/2002 dated 19.07.2002, the Authority informed the Writ Petitioner that the set off pleaded by him is not acceptable and if at all it could be accepted only against the last instalment, that too taking into account the total amount collected. By the same letter, the Authority has permitted the Petitioner to pay the amount in 12 equal bi-monthly instalments for payment of the Award amount. The first instalment to be made on or before 10.08.2002. The First Respondent by letter dated 19.07.2002 directed the Petitioner to immediately pay the seven instalments standing in arrears in a row from 10.08.2002. In the Letter dated 17.09.2003, the First Respondent has warned the Petitioner to pay the amount immediately, failing which would result in launching of necessary action as per law. When seven instalments were due in a row from 10.08.2002, so by this time, the entire instalment amount payable by the Writ Petitioner must have become due. Having under the obligation to pay bi-monthly instalment, which is payable as compensation towards the affected individuals, it is highly improper for the Petitioner to have approached this Court, restraining the Respondents not to recover any amount from the Writ Petitioner. The Writ Petition is highly misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 10. The conduct of the Writ Petitioner in trying to suppress the material facts is also to be noted. As said earlier, Annexure I of the Award refers to the names of the affected individuals numbering 6863. Annexure II of the Award contains the names of the Polluting Tanneries and compensation amount payable by them. The Annexures form part of the Report and Award. The Writ Petitioner has conveniently suppressed the filing of Annexures. As said earlier, Annexure I of the Award refers to the names of the affected individuals numbering 6863. Annexure II of the Award contains the names of the Polluting Tanneries and compensation amount payable by them. The Annexures form part of the Report and Award. The Writ Petitioner has conveniently suppressed the filing of Annexures. Likewise, the Petitioner has already written letter to the First Respondent on 01.07.2002 pleading to allow the payment of Rs.4,17,449/- after setting off Rs.1,15,497/- thereby acknowledging his liability towards the Compensation Award amount. The Writ Petitioner has only sought for set off. While so, it is not open to the Writ Petitioner to challenge the Report and the Award of the Authority relating to the amount of Rs.5,32,996/- apportioned to the Writ Petitioner. We are constrained to express our disapproval over the conduct of the Writ Petitioner in approaching this Court, thereby evading the payment of compensation payable to the suffering individuals. 11. Writ Petitions are decided on the basis of the Statements and Affidavits. If the Petition contains inaccurate Statement or there are suppression of material facts, the Court will not entertain the Petition. This Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands. Suppression of material fact made when the Petitioner had knowledge of the same, is fatal for maintaining the Petition {Vide CHANCELLOR ..VS.. BIJAYANANDAKAR (A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 579)}. 12. The amount of Rs.5,32,996/- is payable in 12 equal bi-monthly instalments. The first instalment is to be made on or before 10.08.2002. Since the first instalment had become due, two years had passed, no amount is forthcoming from the Petitioner. But, suppressing the Annexures and the important letters, the Writ Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition in 2003 and the matter is pending. In that view of the matter, we find it appropriate to direct the Petitioner to pay compensatory costs of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Third Respondent, which amount to be utilised payable towards the Identified Affected Individuals. 13. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. The Petitioner is directed to pay Compensatory costs of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Third Respondent. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P.No.45962 of 2003 is dismissed.