ORDER 1. This special leave petition is directed against an Order dated 16.02.2012 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, whereby writ petition No. 28951 of 2011 purporting to have been filed in public interest has been dismissed as not maintainable. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above petition have been set out at considerable length by the High Court. We do not therefore consider it necessary to recount the same cover again. Suffice it to say that the petitioner happens to be the Honorary President of a political party and a sitting Member of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Assembly, besides being the wife of a former Chief Minister of that State. Writ Petition No. 28951 of 2011 filed by the petitioner before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh alleged that respondent No.8, who was the Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh for a period of 9 years from 1995 to 2004 had acting in concert with respondent Nos. 9 to 20 and by abuse of his official position conferred wrongful gain upon the said respondents to the detriment of public interest. The petitioner made averments suggesting commission of offences by respondent Nos. 8 to 20 including those punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; the Indian Penal Code; the Prevention of Money Laundering Act; FEMA; and the Representation of People Act. Allegations suggesting commission of offences under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act were also made while demanding an impartial enquiry into the acts and deeds of respondent No. 8 by the Central Bureau of Investigation. 3. When the writ petition came up for hearing before the High Court it passed an order dated 14.11.2011 admitting the petition and directing an investigation/inquiry into the acts of criminal misconduct alleged to have been committed by respondent No. 8 and respondents No. 9 to 20 his beneficiaries. The High Court directed that reports based on the investigation be submitted by each one of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in sealed covers for further consideration of the Court. 4. The above order of the High Court was assailed before this Court in Special Leave Petition No. 32037 of 2011, which was dismissed by a Three Judge Bench of this Court by order dated 23.11.2011. 3 to 6 in sealed covers for further consideration of the Court. 4. The above order of the High Court was assailed before this Court in Special Leave Petition No. 32037 of 2011, which was dismissed by a Three Judge Bench of this Court by order dated 23.11.2011. Liberty was however reserved to the respondents - petitioners in the said special leave petition to move the High Court for modification/vacation of the order passed by it. The respondents accordingly moved the High Court for vacation of the interim order and also for dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner on several grounds set out in the Counter affidavits filed by the respondents including the ground that the writ petition could not be maintained as one filed in public interest. It was alleged that the writ petitioner had suppressed material facts from the court and that the petition had been filed on account of political rivalry and vendetta and not in public interest. It was further alleged by the respondents that the petitioner had offered no explanation for the delay in complaining about the alleged acts of respondent nos. 8 to 20 and that the order passed by the court directing a preliminary inquiry was a nullity having been passed without notice to and without hearing the respondents. 5. The High Court has by the order impugned before us dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition was not maintainable and that order dated 14.11.2011 was non-est in the eye of law. In coming to that conclusion the High Court has given three distinct reasons. Firstly, the High Court has held that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that a series of writ petitions filed by her husband, who was the leader of the opposition at the time respondent no. 8 was the Chief Minister seeking almost similar reliefs as were being sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition had been filed and dismissed by the High Court and even by this Court. 8 was the Chief Minister seeking almost similar reliefs as were being sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition had been filed and dismissed by the High Court and even by this Court. The High Court enumerated the details of the said writ petitions as under: "The material placed before this Court by respondent No. 8 shows that the petitioner's husband had filed several writ petitions against the respondent No. 8 during 1999-2004 as under: "(1) W.P. (Sr.) No. 74226 of 1999 for issue of a Writ of Mandamus to His Excellency the Governor with same accusation of disproportionate assets against respondent No. 8, who was the Chief Minister of the State at that point of time. The said writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable and the special leave petition which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 1799 of 2000 was also dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 28.10.2008. (2) W.P. No. 17627 of 1999 and W.P. (Sr.) No. 74241 of 1999, W.P. Nos. 20077 of 1999, 20124 of 1999, 20125 of 1999, 20126 of 1999, 20127 of 1999, 20128 of 1999 and 20129 of 1999 were filed by the petitioner's husband along with several others praying inter alia for investigation by CBI into the properties held by the family of the respondent No. 8. All the said writ petitions were withdrawn and were accordingly dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 12.12.2000. Though W.P. M.P No. 4560 & 4148 of 2001 and etc., were filed subsequently to recall the order 12.12.2000 stating that they were mislead by their counsel, all the said applications were dismissed by the Division Bench. (3) The petitioner's husband again filed W.P. No. 19696 of 2000 alleging that the respondent No. 8 made false declarations in the prospectus of M/s. Heritage Foods Company and there were irregularities in the disposal of his assets and therefore seeking investigation by the CBI. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench by order dated 10.11.2000 observing that in the guise of public interest the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be revoked to order an enquiry by the CBI. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench by order dated 10.11.2000 observing that in the guise of public interest the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be revoked to order an enquiry by the CBI. (4) The petitioner's husband filed civil W.P. No. 127 of 2001 in the High Court of Delhi seeking a direction to the Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi to enquire into the assets of the family members of the respondent No. 8. The said writ petition was also dismissed as withdrawn for want of evidence on 29.03.2001. (5) Some of the associates of the petitioner's husband i.e., Kanna Lakshminarayana and others at the behest of the petitioner's husband filed W.P. No. 1094 of 2004. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by a detailed judgment dated 8.7.2004. (6) Prior to that, they filed W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 272 & 273 of 2003 in the Supreme Court of India seeking a probe by CBI into the assets of the family of the respondent No. 8 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 8.1.2004. (7) W.P. No. 13302 of 1997 which was filed making allegations against the respondent No. 8 as Managing Trustee of N.T.R. Trust was dismissed on 12.09.1998. Against the said order, SLP (C) No. 631 of 1999 was filed and the same was dismissed by order dated 22.07.1999. (8) After assuming office as Chief Minister, the petitioner's husband during his tenure from 2004 to 2009 ordered several inquiries and House Committees against the respondent No. 8, however the respondent No. 8 cannot be indicted in any of the said inquires." 6. The High Court held that filing of the above writ petitions, which were seeking similar investigation/ inquiry into the alleged acts of misconduct by respondent Nos. 8 to 20 had been suppressed by the writ petitioner. The High Court observed: "Having gone through the averments/contentions as well as the reliefs sought in the above noticed proceedings, we are convinced that the cause sought to be espoused by the petitioner in this writ petition was already agitated before different forums including this Court. Apparently the petitioner has preferred this writ petition on the same set of allegations. The High Court observed: "Having gone through the averments/contentions as well as the reliefs sought in the above noticed proceedings, we are convinced that the cause sought to be espoused by the petitioner in this writ petition was already agitated before different forums including this Court. Apparently the petitioner has preferred this writ petition on the same set of allegations. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the above noticed previous proceedings are suppressed in the writ petition in spite of the fact that the petitioner's husband was a party to most of the said proceedings. This undoubtedly amounts to abuse of process of the Court under the guise of Public Interest Litigation." (emphasis supplied) 7. Secondly, the High Court held that the petitioner was politically antagonistic to respondent No. 8 and writ petition arose out of political rivalry, more than public interest. The Court in this regard observed: "The sequence of events noticed above, particularly the admitted fact that the writ petitioner is politically antagonistic to the respondent No. 8 substantiates the allegation of the respondents that the writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation is not genuine and that it is filed only for extraneous considerations." 8. Thirdly, the High Court found that the petitioner had not offered any explanation for her silence for a long period stretching over nearly 10 years since 1995 when the alleged acts of misconduct were committed by respondent No. 8, during his tenure as Chief Minister. The High Court therefore considered the petition to be barred even on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. In conclusion, the High Court held that the petitioner had not taken any steps before the competent authority for initiating an inquiry/investigation against respondent No. 8 nor was any complaint lodged with any statutory authority. Relying upon a series of decisions of this Court, the High Court held that present petition was not a fit case in which the High Court ought to invoke its public interest jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. 9. Relying upon a series of decisions of this Court, the High Court held that present petition was not a fit case in which the High Court ought to invoke its public interest jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. 9. Dealing with the validity of the interim order passed by it on 14.11.2011, the High Court found that the same liable to be vacated as the respondents who were affected by the said order had not been heard even when their reputation was likely to be affected adversely in case an investigation was launched into their affairs under the supervision of the Court, on the basis of allegations which were according to the respondents, not only unfounded by politically motivated. 10. We have heard Mr. Ram Jethmalani and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and M/s. Harish N. Salve, A.K. Ganguly and Mr. Anil Divan, learned senior counsel for the respondents, who have taken us through the record and the decisions on the subject. The order passed by the High Court does not in our opinion call for any interference by us in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is fairly well settled that the writ jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Article 226 is discretionary and equitable in nature. The High Court can and indeed ought to refuse exercise of jurisdiction in all such cases where it finds that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands or that the proceedings have been launched to achieve a political end or settle political scores. Suppression of material facts, laches and political mileage that a petitioner may to attempting to draw out of proceedings of the court are relevant factors that can and ought to weigh with the court while determining whether it should or should not exercise its jurisdiction. This is so especially when the writ jurisdiction is sought to be invoked by a person who is in active politics and who is ostensibly moved by political compulsions or vendetta rather than a genuine concern for maintaining purity in public life. 11. This is so especially when the writ jurisdiction is sought to be invoked by a person who is in active politics and who is ostensibly moved by political compulsions or vendetta rather than a genuine concern for maintaining purity in public life. 11. On the facts set out by the High Court in its order, we are of the opinion that the High Court was entitled to take the view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was not genuinely in public interest. If that be so as we think it is, we are not inclined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution, which too is discretionary in nature. We, however, make it clear that the refusal of the High Court to invoke its writ jurisdiction in public interest or the refusal of this Court to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the High Court should not be understood to mean that we have expressed any opinion about the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against respondents 8 to 20. Whether or not respondent has amassed wealth and whether or not he has committed any criminal misconduct or misused his powers to give benefit to respondents 9 to 20 or to anyone else are matters to which we have not adverted nor expressed any opinion about the same. All that the High Court has done by its order is that it has refused to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution; which order we are not inclined to interfere with under Article 136 of the Constitution. There is therefore no gainsaying that if the petitioner is aggrieved of any act of misconduct allegedly committed by respondent No. 8, individually or in concert with respondents 9 to 20, she shall be free to approach the competent court or the competent authority in accordance with law for redress including redress in the nature of demanding an investigation into the allegations levelled against the said respondent or any one who has benefited from the alleged illegal acts of omission or commission of respondent No. 8. 12. The special leave petition is with the above observations dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.