JUDGMENT By the Court—This writ petition has been filed for quashing the recovery dated 24th December, 2005 which has been issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Muzaffarnagar and for a direction upon the respondents not to recover any amount from the petitioner without recovering the same from the principal debtor. The petitioner was a guarantor for the loan taken by M/s. Kirti Food Industries from respondent Canara Bank. The recovery certificate has, therefore, been issued against the petitioner. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the materials available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the petitioner is merely a guarantor, it was imperative for the Bank to have first recovered the loan from the principal debtor and that in any view of the matter the respondents could not recover the amount as arrears of land revenue as it was a cash credit loan. 4. In order to examine the first contention, the petitioner should have brought on record the agreement entered into between M/s. Kirti Food Industries and the respondent Bank under which the petitioner was the guarantor but the petitioner has not brought on record the said agreement. Section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872 clearly provides that the liability of a surety is coextensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract. 5. In such circumstances when the petitioner has not placed the terms of the agreement, we cannot agree with this contention of the petitioner, as in absence of any agreement to the contrary, the petitioner was liable as the guarantor. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that the loan which had been taken as Cash Credit Loan cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Thus, according to him, the recovery proceedings against the petitioner even as guarantor is bad in law. 7. In the entire petition it has not been disputed that the loan amount was not repaid. In such a situation when the liability is admitted, it has to be seen whether any relief can be granted to the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. 7. In the entire petition it has not been disputed that the loan amount was not repaid. In such a situation when the liability is admitted, it has to be seen whether any relief can be granted to the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In our opinion, the grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the Court can decline relief where the petitioner seeks to secure a dishonest advantage or perpetuate unjust gain. In the instant case, as stated above, the petitioner has not denied the liability and all that he contends is that recovery cannot be made as arrears of land revenue. In such circumstances, we do not consider it to be a fit case where the petitioner should be permitted to raise this issue. 9. In Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills & Anr., AIR 1994 SC 2151 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed : “A Court of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution must so act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and the Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith, as far as it lies within their power. Equity is always known to defend the law from clefty evasions and new subtelities invented to evade law.” 10. In the case of M.P. Mittal v. State of Haryana and others , AIR 1984 SC, 1888, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows : “The appeal arises out of a writ petition, and it is well settled that when a petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is open to the High Court to consider whether, in the exercise of its undoubted discretionary jurisdiction, it should decline relief to such petitioner if the grant of relief would defeat the interests of justice. The Court always has power to refuse relief where the petitioner seeks to invoke its writ jurisdiction in order to secure a dishonest advantage or perpetuate an unjust gain. This is a case where the High Court was fully justified in refusing relief.” 11. The Court always has power to refuse relief where the petitioner seeks to invoke its writ jurisdiction in order to secure a dishonest advantage or perpetuate an unjust gain. This is a case where the High Court was fully justified in refusing relief.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481 considered the equity jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and pointed out as follows : “Even assuming that the construction placed by the High Court and vehemently defended by the learned counsel for respondent is correct should the High Court have interfered with the order of Government in exercise of its equity jurisdiction.................Where the Government or any authority passes an order which is contrary to rules or law it becomes amenable to correction by the Courts in exercise of writ jurisdiction. But one of the principles inherent in it is that the exercise of power should be for the sake of justice. One of the yardstick for it is if the quashing of the order results in greater harm to the society then the Court may restrain from exercising the power...........Therefore, even if the order of the Government was vitiated either because it omitted to issue a proper show-cause notice or it could not have proceeded against the respondent for his past activities the High Court should have refused to interfere in exercise of its equity jurisdiction as the facts of the case did not warrant interference..........It is the responsibility of the High Court as custodian of the Constitution to maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for sake of justice and refusing to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good.” 12. The same position was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 2889 in which it was observed as follows : "Issuance of a writ of Certiorari is a discretionary remedy (Champalal Binani v. CIT, West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 645 ). The High Court and consequently this Court while exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order although it would be lawful to do so. The High Court and consequently this Court while exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order although it would be lawful to do so. In a given case, the High Court or this Court may refuse to extend the benefit of a discretionary relief to the applicant.” 13. In ONGC Ltd. v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel and others, (2005) 6 SCC 454 , the Supreme Court held as follows : “It is now well settled that the High Court and the Supreme Court while exercising their equity jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution as also Article 136 thereof may not exercise the same in appropriate cases. While exercising such jurisdiction, the superior Courts in India may not strike down even a wrong order only because it would be lawful to do so. A discretionary relief may be refused to be extended to the appellant in a given case although the Court may find the same to be justified in law. [See S.D.S. Shipping (P) Ltd. v. Jay Container Services Co. (P) Ltd., (2003) 9 SCC 439 ].” 14. The observations made in the aforesaid decisions compel us not to grant relief to the petitioner. 15. There is, therefore, no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed. —————