ALTAMAS KABIR, J. ( 1 ) TWO fisheries, namely, Laxmi Kole Bisanpur Jalkar (Nurpur barrage to entire Haripur Koke) and Laxmi Kole Bisanpur Jalkar (from Haripur Kole damn to Talbona) are the objects of dispute between the writ petitioner society and the Chandpur Fishermen's Co-operative Society limited, being the respondent No. 5 in the writ petition. ( 2 ) PURSUANT to a notice issued on 3rd April, 2003, by the District Land and land Reforms Officer, Malda, the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 5 cooperative societies submitted tenders for the said two fisheries. According to the petitioner society, when the tender papers were opened on 10th April, 2003, its bid in respect of the said two fisheries were declared to be the highest. As per the terms of the tender, the petitioner society was asked to deposit 1/4th of the lease rent and such direction was duly complied with by the petitioner society. Since in spite of the above possession of the fisheries was not made over to the petitioner society, it filed an application before the West Bengal land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal being, O. A. No. 1727 of 2003. The respondent No. 5 society also filed an application before the learned Tribunal, being O. A. No. 1959 of 2003, questioning the declaration that the petitioner society was the highest tenderer in respect of the said two fisheries and praying for reallocation thereof. ( 3 ) BOTH the applications were heard and disposed of together by the learned tribunal on 16th May, 2003, by directing the District Land and Land Reforms officer, Malda, to settle the dispute in accordance with the West Bengal Land reforms Manual, 1991, as amended in 2001. By his order dated 30th June, 2003, the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Malda, directed that the selection of the petitioner society as the highest bidder be cancelled and the deposit made be refunded. The respondent No. 5 society was directed to deposit 1/4th of the amount offered by them within seven days from the date of the order. By his order dated 30th June, 2003, the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Malda, directed that the selection of the petitioner society as the highest bidder be cancelled and the deposit made be refunded. The respondent No. 5 society was directed to deposit 1/4th of the amount offered by them within seven days from the date of the order. ( 4 ) CHALLENGING the said decision of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner society filed a writ petition, being W. P. No. 9969 (W) of 2003, in this Court and an interim order was passed therein restraining the respondents from giving any effect or further effect to the order dated 30th June, 2003, passed by the respondent No. 2. ( 5 ) ON 8th July, 2003, the petitioner society claims to have received a notice dated 2nd July, 2003, issued by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Ratua, the respondent No. 4 herein, asking the petitioner society to take refund of the deposits made on 10th April, 2003, in respect of the said two fisheries. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner society challenged the same before the learned tribunal, together with the order passed by the respondent No. 2 on 30th June, 2003, without disclosing that a writ petition had also been filed in the High court challenging the order dated 30th June, 2003, and that an interim order had been passed therein. ( 6 ) ON 18th July, 2003, a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the writ petitioner society before the Tribunal disclosing the fact that a writ petition had also been filed in the High Court against the order dated 30th june, 2003, and that an interim order had been passed therein. On 21st July, 2003, when the Tribunal took up the matter, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 5 that the writ petition had been filed in the High Court under wrong legal advice and would be withdrawn. The hearing was accordingly adjourned to enable the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. On 24th July, 2003, the writ petition [w. P. No. 9969 (W) of 2003] was withdrawn and a certificate to that effect was filed before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. The hearing was accordingly adjourned to enable the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. On 24th July, 2003, the writ petition [w. P. No. 9969 (W) of 2003] was withdrawn and a certificate to that effect was filed before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, the order passed by the Tribunal on 21st July, 2003, was challenged by the respondent No. 5 in a writ proceeding (W. P. L. R. T. No. 566 of 2003) in this Court questioning the maintainability of O. A. No. 2421 of 2003 before the Tribunal on the ground of suppression of the fact that a writ petition [w. P. No. 9969 (W) of 2003] had been filed against the order passed by the respondent No. 2 on 30th June, 2003, in the High Court and that an interim order had been passed therein. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 5th August, 2003, with leave to the respondent No. 5 to file an application before the Tribunal challenging the maintainability of the pending application and with a direction upon the Tribunal to decide the question of maintainability of the application pending before it before proceeding to decide the merits of the case. ( 8 ) THE respondent No. 5 filed an application pursuant to the leave granted by this Court and the same was heard on affidavits and allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated 26th September, 2003. The learned Tribunal dismissed the writ petitioner's Original Application No. 2421 of 2003, upon holding that by suppressing the facts regarding the pendency of the writ petition [w. P. No. 9969 (W) of 2003] the petitioner society had withheld material evidence in the said application and had failed to come to the Tribunal with clean hands. The original application was held to be not maintainable on such score and was dismissed. ( 9 ) THE said order of the learned Tribunal is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition. ( 10 ) APPEARING in support of the writ petition Mr. The original application was held to be not maintainable on such score and was dismissed. ( 9 ) THE said order of the learned Tribunal is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition. ( 10 ) APPEARING in support of the writ petition Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya submitted that the learned Tribunal had committed gross irregularity in dismissing the writ petitioner society's original application without appreciating the fact and that the non-disclosure of the pendency of the writ petition in the high Court did not amount to suppression but omission on legal advice, which fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal on 21st July, 2003, when the hearing of the original application was adjourned to enable the writ petitioner to withdraw the writ application pending in this Court. It was urged that the tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the writ petition had been withdrawn as per the undertaking given on behalf of the writ petitioner society to the tribunal on 21st July, 2003. ( 11 ) MR. Bhattacharya urged that the learned Tribunal misconstrued the direction of this Court in W. P. L. R. T. No. 566 of 2003, since the original application could be entertained only by the Tribunal and was not maintainable before any other forum. ( 12 ) MR. Bhattacharya urged that strictly speaking the subject-matter of the writ petition [w. P. No. 9969 (W) of 2003] was different from the subject-matter of O. A. No. 2421 of 2003 filed in the Tribunal. While the writ petition was directed against the order passed by the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, malda, cancelling the declaration made in favour of the writ petitioner society that the bid made by it on 10th April, 2003, was the highest, the subject-matter of O. A. No. 2421 of 2003, before the Tribunal was primarily the notice issued by the respondent No. 3 on 2nd July, 2003, which was a fall out of the order dated 30th June, 2003. Mr. Bhattacharya contended that since, however, the order of 30th June, 2003, was also incidentally called into question in the proceeding before the learned Tribunal, the writ petitioner society was advised to withdraw the writ petition in which the order of 30th June, 2003, had been challenged. ( 13 ) MR. Mr. Bhattacharya contended that since, however, the order of 30th June, 2003, was also incidentally called into question in the proceeding before the learned Tribunal, the writ petitioner society was advised to withdraw the writ petition in which the order of 30th June, 2003, had been challenged. ( 13 ) MR. Bhattacharya submitted that the writ petitioner society had no mala fide intention of wilfully suppressing any material facts from the Tribunal and had acted on the advice of legal experts in moving the High Court and the learned Tribunal and had also acted on legal advice in withdrawing one of the two proceedings. Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that the same could not be a ground for dismissal of the original application particularly when the writ petition had been withdrawn pursuant to the undertaking given to the Tribunal on 21st July, 2003. ( 14 ) APPEARING for the respondent No. 5 society, Mr. Sardar Amjad Ali submitted that the learned Tribunal had rightly dismissed the original application which had been vitiated by fraud. ( 15 ) ELABORATING his submission, Mr. Ali pointed out that in the original application a deliberate misstatement aimed at misleading the Tribunal had been made and the Tribunal was led to believe that the petitioner society had not moved any other forum over the self-same cause of action. Mr. Ali submitted that the petitioner society deliberately suppressed the fact relating to the filing of the writ petition in the High Court as it wanted to try its luck of getting a favourable order from either of the two forums. ( 16 ) MR. Ali submitted that while before the Tribunal it had been averred that the respondent authorities were not handing over physical possession of the two fisheries to the petitioner society, in the writ application filed in the high Court it had been averred that possession of the two fisheries had already been made over to the petitioner society. Mr. Ali submitted that such averment had been made before the High Court to obtain the interim order on 4th July, 2003. ( 17 ) MR. Ali also contended that the inconsistency in the case and averments of the petitioner society did not end there. Mr. Ali submitted that such averment had been made before the High Court to obtain the interim order on 4th July, 2003. ( 17 ) MR. Ali also contended that the inconsistency in the case and averments of the petitioner society did not end there. In the rejoinder filed to the supplementary reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5 society, it had been stated by Subhas Chaudhury Rajak, Secretary of the petitioner society that on 18th July, 2003, he had affirmed an affidavit before the Tribunal, when, in fact, it had been sworn by one Dipen Biswas as tadbirkar of the petitioner society. Mr. Ali submitted that the learned Tribunal had rightly held that the affidavit sworn by Subhas Chaudhury Rajak could not be relied upon on account of such inconsistency. ( 18 ) MR. Ali submitted that since the petitioner society had not come to Court with clean hands and had suppressed relevant materials for obtaining an advantageous order, it had practised fraud upon the Court and the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the petitioner society's original application. ( 19 ) IN support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Ali firstly referred to and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. P. Chengai varaya Naidu vs. Jagennath and Ors. , reported in 1994 (1) SCC Page 1, wherein the age-old principle that a litigant must come to Court with clean hands has been reiterated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court and that a judgment and decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. It was also observed that a fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. A litigant who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party. ( 20 ) A similar view was taken in the case of Gourishankar and Anr. vs. Joshi amba Shankar, Family Trust and Anr. , reported in 1996 (3) SCC Page 310. ( 20 ) A similar view was taken in the case of Gourishankar and Anr. vs. Joshi amba Shankar, Family Trust and Anr. , reported in 1996 (3) SCC Page 310. ( 21 ) SEVERAL other decisions were also referred to on the question of nondisclosure of relevant and important materials which reiterated the principles laid down in the first two cases cited by Mr. Ali. ( 22 ) MR. Ali urged that by withholding the fact relating to filing of the writ petition in this Court, the petitioner society had tried to obtain an unfair advantage and was not, therefore, entitled to any relief in equity. ( 23 ) MRS. Gupta, who appeared for the State and the State respondents submitted that the State was required to play a neutral role in the matter but she agreed in principle with the view that a litigant was required to disclose all material facts before the Court so as not to obtain an unfair advantage by such suppression or non-disclosure. ( 24 ) IN order to appreciate the reasoning of the learned Tribunal in its order dated 26th September, 2003, we must first look into the directions given by this court on 5th August, 2003, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 5 herein, (W. P. L. R. T No. 566 of 2003) which had been filed against the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 21st July, 2003, in Original application No. 2421 of 2003. ( 25 ) AS will appear from the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 21st july, 2003, the Senior Advocate of the petitioner society disclosed before the tribunal that a writ petition [w. P. No. 9969 (W) of 2003] had been filed against the order of the respondent No. 2 dated 30th June, 2003, on wrong legal advice and that the same was to be withdrawn. On the basis of such submission the learned Tribunal recorded its appreciation and adjourned the hearing of the original application till after the withdrawal of the writ petition from the High court and the filing of certificate to that effect before the Tribunal. On the basis of such submission the learned Tribunal recorded its appreciation and adjourned the hearing of the original application till after the withdrawal of the writ petition from the High court and the filing of certificate to that effect before the Tribunal. ( 26 ) IT is the said order of the learned Tribunal which was challenged by the respondent No. 5 herein in W. P. L. R. T. No. 566 of 2003, which was disposed of on 5th August, 2003 by the Tribunal to decide the question of maintainability of the proceeding on account of the allegation of fraud brought by the respondent no. 5. This Court chose not to make any observation in the matter and simply directed the Tribunal to hear out the question of maintainability first before proceeding to decide the merits of the case. ( 27 ) WHEN the matter was taken up by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the application filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5 filed pursuant to the leave granted by this Court in its order dated 5th August, 2003, the learned tribunal apparently had second thoughts over the matter which caused it to alter the view which it had earlier taken on 21st April, 2003. It is obvious that such change in the view of the learned Tribunal took place after it had the benefit of the submissions made on behalf of the respondent No. 5 regarding the manner in which a fraud had allegedly been committed by the petitioner society on the learned Tribunal by suppression of certain facts which the learned tribunal considered to be material for a decision of the original application pending before it. It has been emphatically urged by Mr. Ali that by not disclosing the pendency of the writ petition in this Court against the order of 30th June, 2003, passed by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner society had sought to gain an unfair advantage. Mr. Ali has also pointed that untrue averments had been made before the learned Tribunal which struck at the very root of the matter pending before the learned Tribunal. As against Mr. Ali's allegations it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner society that the petitioner society had merely acted on legal advice. Mr. Ali has also pointed that untrue averments had been made before the learned Tribunal which struck at the very root of the matter pending before the learned Tribunal. As against Mr. Ali's allegations it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner society that the petitioner society had merely acted on legal advice. The petitioner society had been advised that the cause of action for the writ petition before the High Court was different from the cause of action for the proceeding subsequently filed before the learned tribunal. However, on being advised by the Senior Counsel to withdraw the writ petition before the High Court, it had immediately taken steps to do so after informing the Tribunal accordingly, on 21st July, 2003. ( 28 ) IN our view, while non-disclosure of the writ petition before the High court was highly improper, it should not have been treated as fatal to the original application as had been done by the learned Tribunal. We are unable to understand as to what advantage the petitioner society could have gained by non-disclosure of the pendency of the matter before the High Court. It has been sought to be urged on behalf of the respondent No. 5 that the petitioner society was bent upon obtaining a favourable order from either of the two forums. Since it had already obtained an interim order in the writ petition in respect of the order dated 30th June, 2003, passed by the District Land and Land Reforms officer, Malda, there was no further need for the petitioner society to challenge the same order before the learned Tribunal. The explanation given on behalf of the petitioner society regarding the filing of the two applications before the two different forums on wrong legal advice appear to us to fit the facts of the instant case. By disclosing the pendency of the writ petition in this Court the petitioner society has shown that it had no intention to obtain any unfair and undue advantage by non-disclosure of the aforesaid fact. ( 29 ) IT is no doubt well-settled that fraud unravels everything, but one has to see whether an omission, even if deliberate, is in the nature of a fraud committed to obtain undue and/or unfair advantage for oneself. In our view, that is not so in the instant case. ( 29 ) IT is no doubt well-settled that fraud unravels everything, but one has to see whether an omission, even if deliberate, is in the nature of a fraud committed to obtain undue and/or unfair advantage for oneself. In our view, that is not so in the instant case. ( 30 ) THE statement made regarding delivery of possession in the writ petition spent its force with the withdrawal of the writ petition and could not, therefore, influence the learned Tribunal while deciding the original application which had, in fact, been filed by the petitioner society on account of failure of the concerned respondents to hand over possession of the two Jalkars to the petitioner society despite having declared it to be the highest bidder in respect thereof and having directed it to deposit 25 per cent of the bid money which deposit was also made. The writ petition having been withdrawn, the grounds taken on behalf of the respondent No. 5 society for dismissal of the original application lost much of its strength and the learned Tribunal, in our view, acted erroneously in dismissing the original application on such grounds. Had the petitioner society really obtained any unfair and/or undue advantage against the respondent No. 5, we would have had no hesitation in dismissing the writ petition, but in the absence of an intention on the part of the petitioner society to obtain such advantage, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the learned Tribunal while dismissing the writ petition. We are inclined to give benefit of doubt to the petitioner society on the question of filing of the two petitions, one before the High Court and the other before the learned Tribunal, on wrong legal advice. ( 31 ) WE, accordingly, set aside the order of the learned Tribunal dated 26th september, 2003, dismissing the writ petitioner's original application being 2421 of 2003, and direct the learned Tribunal to hear out the said application on merits, if possible within three months from the date of communication of this order. ( 32 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. ( 33 ) IF an urgent xerox copy of this order is applied for, the same is to be supplied to the applicant expeditiously. Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. : I agree. Writ petition allowed.