JUDGMENT 1. M/s. Sree Sumangala Metal and Industries (P) Ltd., represented by its Director, Karthik Sabanayagam, (2)Karthik Sabanayagam, (3)Nityashree Sabanayagam, represented by its Power Agent, Mrs. Kalpana Sabanayagam, (4)Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, have challenged the proceedings, dated 02.09.2013, bearing No.Na.Ka.1/2012, issued by the Special Tahsildar (L.A.), Irungattukottai Expansion Scheme, Unit-V, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District, 3rd respondent herein and consequently, to direct the respondents herein to consider the representation, dated 20.06.2013 of the petitioners to exempt the land, measuring an extent of 28.22 acres out of 70.60 Acres in Survey Nos.55/2D, 2E, 61/2B and 61/2D2 at Irumpedu Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 2. The impugned proceedings in Rc.No.Na.Ka.1/2012, issued by the Special Tahsildar (L.A.), Irungattukottai Expansion Scheme, Unit-V, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District, 3rd respondent herein, dated 02.09.2013, is extracted hereunder: (“Tamil”) 3. Material on record discloses that notices under Sections 7(5) and 7(7) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997, has been issued to (1) Nithya Sabanayagam, D/o. Karthik Sabanayagam, (2) Divya Sabanayagam, D/o. Karthik Sabanayagam, (3) Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, (4) Karthik Sabanayagam, and (5) Nithyashree Sabanayagam. The notice issued to Nithya Sabanayagam, is extracted hereunder: Rc.No.1/2012/08 O/o. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Unit No.5 Unit No.5 BK-II IRK Expansion Scheme Sriperumbudur. NOTICES UNDER SECTION 7(5) AND 7(7) OF THE TAMIL NADU ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSE ACT, 1997 (ACT 10/1999) Notice is hereby given that State Government propose to acquire the lands mentioned in the Schedule below, which are required for a public purpose that is for the setting up SIPCOT Industrial Complex, IRK Expansion Scheme under Act 10/1999. You are required to appear in person or by the authorised agent on 16.10.2013 before the Special Tahsildar (LA), Unit-5, at Sriperumbudur on 11 A.M., and to state/put in a statement in writing signed by you or your authorised agent showing the nature of your interest in the lands, the amount payable for such interest with particulars thereof and to put in a statement containing so far as may be practicable, the name of every person possessing any interest in the land or any part of it as co-owner, mortgagee, tenant or otherwise and the nature of such interest and the rents and profits (if any) received or receivable on account of it for three years next preceding the date of the statement. PARTICULARS OF THE LAND District: Kancheepuram Taluk : Sriperumbudur Village: 134/133/101 Irumbedu Survey Number Wet/Dry/ Manai Extent Name of the Owner/Registered holder/or other person interested in the land 55/2D Govt. Dry 3.67.5 Nithya Sabanayagam, D/o.Karthik Sabanayagam Sd/- Special Tahsildar (LA), Unit-5, SIPCOT, IRK Expansion Scheme, Sriperumbudur. To Tmt. Nithya Sabanayagam 4. On 04.02.2014, when the matter came up for admission, Mr. Sanjay Ramasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumstances, by considering the representation, dated 13.02.2013, of one Tvl.Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Private Ltd., the Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department, Chennai, have passed orders in Lr.No.2542/SIPCOT-LA/2013-2, dated 29.04.2013 and that the same has been challenged by the Director of the abovesaid company. This Court, while considering the prayer in M.P.No.2 of 2013, vide order, dated 11.10.2013, has granted status-quo. He further submitted that the present writ petitioners are also similarly placed, and therefore, the said order can be made, is applicable to the facts of this case also. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the present petitioners, M/s. Sree Sumangala Metal and Industries (P) Ltd., represented by its Director, Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam, and others, sent a representation, dated 27.02.2013, seeking for exemption of lands and also made a further representation, dated 20.06.2013, to exempt the lands, measuring 28.22 Acres in Survey Nos.55/2D, 55/2E, 61/2B & 61/2D2 in Irumbedu Village, Sriperumbudur, the Secretary to the Government, Industries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, has failed to consider the said representations. 6. He further submitted that the order, dated 29.04.2013, in Lr.No.2542/SIPCOT-LA/2013-2, passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department, Chennai, on the representation, dated 13.02.2013, submitted by some of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.9485 to 9487 of 2008, has not been given to the petitioners, in the present writ petition. 7. When the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation, dated 27.02.2013, submitted by the petitioners, was already on the file of the Secretary to the Government, Industries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and not taken up for consideration, attention of the learned counsel was invited to Paragraph 4 of the common order made in W.P.Nos.9485 to 9487 of 2008, dated 21.01.2013, wherein, the Court, on an earlier occasion, has permitted the petitioners therein, to make a representation. For better understanding, the common order made in W.P.No.9485 to 9487 of 2008, dated 21.01.2013, is extracted hereunder: "Since the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed. 2. Though the present writ petitions are filed challenging the G.O.Ms.No.40, Industries (SIPCOT-LA) dated 4.3.2008 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary issued by the first respondent under Section 3(1) of the Act and the consequent Notice dated 12.03.2008 issued by the third respondent under Section 4(2) of the Act in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners measuring about 42.38 acres situated at Irumpedu village, Sriperumbudur, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have already approached the Central Government to develop a Special Economic Zone in the lands in question and are awaiting the sanction for setting up a SEZ from the Government of India and hence, the petitioners can be permitted to make an application to the first respondent to exempt the lands owned by the petitioners and on making such representation, the first respondent could be directed to consider the same, on merits. 3. To the said request, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents has expressed no objection. According to him, as and when a representation in this regard is made by the petitioners, the same would be considered by the first respondent, on merits and in accordance with law. 4. In view of the same, these writ petitions are disposed of, with a direction to the petitioners to make a representation to the first respondent for exempting the lands owned by M/s. Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director Rajendran Sabanayagam, P.Sabanayagam, Aarthi Sabanayagam, Ashwin Sabanayagam and Priya Sabanayagam for the reasons stated therein within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on doing so, the first respondent is directed to consider the claim, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter. The writ petitions are disposed accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.2, 2 and 2 of 2008 are closed." 8. Inasmuch as it was contended that a similar treatment ought to have given to the present petitioners also, Registry was directed to post W.P.No.28143 of 2013, along with the present writ petition. The writ petitions are disposed accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.2, 2 and 2 of 2008 are closed." 8. Inasmuch as it was contended that a similar treatment ought to have given to the present petitioners also, Registry was directed to post W.P.No.28143 of 2013, along with the present writ petition. The prayers made in W.P.Nos.9485 to 9487 of 2008, as follows: “Prayer in W.P.No.9485 of 2008: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the proceedings by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.40, Industries (SIPCOT-LA), dated 4th March, 2008, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary issued by the first respondent under Section 3(1) of the Act and the consequent notice, dated 12.03.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent under Section 4(2) of the Act and received by the second petitioner on 19.03.2008 in respect of the lands belonging to the second petitioner measuring about 15.15 Acres. W.P.No.9485 of 2008 Extent of land 1. M/s.Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Pvt. Ltd., rep., by its Director, Mr. Rajendran Sabanayagam.2. Mr. P.Sabanayagam 15.15 Acres belonging to Mr. P.Sabanayagam Prayer in W.P.No.9486 of 2008: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the proceedings by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.46, Industries (SIPCOT-LA), dated 10th March, 2008, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary published at Chennai, Monday, March 10, 2008, issued by the first respondent under Section 3(1) of the Act, in respect of the lands belonging to the 2nd petitioner, Aarthi Sabanayagam, in S.F.No.55-2A, measuring about 3.67.5 Hectares and lands belonging to the 3rd petitioner, Mr. Aswin Sabanayagam in S.F.No.55-2B, measuring about 3.67.5 Hectares, totalling 7.35.0 Hectares and quash the same. W.P.No.9486 of 2008 Extent of land 1. M/s.Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Pvt. Ltd., rep., by its Director, Mr. Rajendran Sabanayagam.2. Aarthi Sabanagayam3. Aswin Sabanayagam in S.F.No.55-2B, measuring about 3.67.5 Hectares, totalling 7.35.0 Hectares and quash the same. W.P.No.9486 of 2008 Extent of land 1. M/s.Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Pvt. Ltd., rep., by its Director, Mr. Rajendran Sabanayagam.2. Aarthi Sabanagayam3. Ashwin Sabanayagam 3.67.5 Hectares in S.F.No.55-2A belonging to Aarthi Sabanagayam and 3.67.5 Hectares in S.F.No.55-2B, belonging to Ashwin Sabanayagam, totalling 7.35.0 Hectares Prayer in W.P.No.9487 of 2008: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the proceedings by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.53, Industries (SIPCOT-LA), dated 10th March, 2008, issued by the first respondent and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary published at Chennai, Monday, March 10, 2008, in respect of the lands, belonging to the 2nd petitioner, Ms. Priya Sabanayagam, in S.F.No.55-2C, measuring about 3.67.5 Hectares and lands belonging to the 3rd petitioner, Ms. Nithyashree Sabanayagam in S.F.No.55-2D, measuring about 3.67.5 Hectares and lands belonging to the fourth petitioner, Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, in S.F.No.55-2E, measuring about 3.67.0 Hectares, totalling 11.02.0 Hectares and the consequent notices under Section 4(2), dated 22.03.2008 issued by the third respondent and received by the third and fourth petitioners on 25.03.2008. W.P.No.9487 of 2008 Extent of land 1. M/s.Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Pvt. Ltd., rep., by its Director, Mr. Rajendran Sabanayagam.2. Priya Sabanagayam3. Nithyashree Sabanayagam4. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam 3.67.5 Hectares in S.F.No.55-2C, belonging to Priya Sabanagayam, 3.67.5 Hectares in S.F.No.55-2D, belonging to Nithyashree Sabanayagam; and 3.67.0 Hectares in S.F.No.55-2E, belonging to Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, totalling 7.35.0 Hectares 9. Perusal of the materials available on record in W.P.No.28143 of 2013, reveals that M/s. Sumangala Industrial Parks & Investments Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director, Mr. Rajendran Sabanayagam, (2) Mr. P.Sabanayagam, (3) Mr. Ashwin Sabanayagam, (4) Ms. Aarthi Sabanayagam and (5) Ms. Priya Sabanayagam, presented by their Power Agent, Renuka Sabanayagam, have filed the above Writ Petition, challenging the rejection order, in Lr.No.2542/SIPCOT-LA/2013-2, dated 29.04.2013, passed by the Secretary to the Government, Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department, Chennai, in respect of the lands, belonging to the 2nd petitioner, Mr. P.Sabanayagam herein, measuring 15.15 Acres and in Survey Nos.61/2B and 61/2D2 and petitioners 3, 4 and 5, in Survey Nos.55/2A, 55/2B and 55/2C respectively, each holding 9.09 Acres. The impugned order of rejection in W.P.No.28143 of 2013, reads as follows: Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. P.Sabanayagam herein, measuring 15.15 Acres and in Survey Nos.61/2B and 61/2D2 and petitioners 3, 4 and 5, in Survey Nos.55/2A, 55/2B and 55/2C respectively, each holding 9.09 Acres. The impugned order of rejection in W.P.No.28143 of 2013, reads as follows: Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. Letter No.2542/SIPCOT-LA/2013-2, dated 29.04.2013 From Thiru.N.S. Palaniappan, I.A.S., Principal Secretary to Government. To The Director, Tvl.Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Private Ltd., 45, Chamiers Road, Chennai-28. Sir, Sub: W.P.Nos.9486 and 9487/2008 – Filed by Tvl.Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Private Limited – Orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court – Regarding. Ref: 1. From the High Court of Madras Judgment dated 21.01.2013 received on 14.02.2013. 2. Tvl.Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Private Limited, Petition, dated 13.02.2013. 3. Government Letter No.2542/SIPCOT-LA/ 2013-1, dated 28.02.2013. 4. From the Principal Secretary/Chairman and Managing Director, SIPCOT, Chennai-8, Letter No.LA.WP.No.9485/2008, dated 21.03.2013. In the reference first cited your company has filed the writ petitions against the acquisition of land for the SIPCOT scheme, including the two Writ Petitions (W.P.Nos.9486 and 9487/2008) in the High Court of Madras and the Court had passed orders on 21.01.2013 as detailed below: “These writ petitions are disposed of, with a direction to the petitioners to make a representation to the first respondent for exempting the lands owned by M/s. Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Private Limited, represented by its Director Rajendran Sabanayagam, P.Sabanayagam, Aarthi Sabanayagam, Ashwin Sabanayagam and Priya Sabanayagam for the reasons stated therein within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on doing so, the first respondent is directed to consider the claim, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter.” 2. Based on the above judgment, you have submitted representation to Government for excluding lands in S.F.Nos.55/2B, 55/2C, 61/2B & 61/2D2, measuring an extent of 42.33 Acres in Irumbedu Village, so as to enable you to establish your own Industry and setting up of new Special Economic Zone. 3. On your request, the Government have consulted the Principal Secretary/Chairman and Managing Director, SIPCOT. After careful examination, the Government have decided not to exempt the lands in S.F.Nos.55/2B, 55/2A, 55/2C, 61/2B & 61/2D2 (42.33 Acres) in Irumbedu Village from the acquisition. Accordingly, your request is not feasible for compliance. 3. On your request, the Government have consulted the Principal Secretary/Chairman and Managing Director, SIPCOT. After careful examination, the Government have decided not to exempt the lands in S.F.Nos.55/2B, 55/2A, 55/2C, 61/2B & 61/2D2 (42.33 Acres) in Irumbedu Village from the acquisition. Accordingly, your request is not feasible for compliance. Further, it is informed that if you want allotment of lands either in the present scheme or in any other SIPCOT scheme on usual terms and conditions for the purpose of setting up of industry or new SEZ you may apply to SIPCOT and the same may be considered on merits and in accordance with law, subject to eligibility and availability of lands in such a scheme. Yours faithfully Sd/- for Principal Secretary to Government. Copy to: The Principal Secretary/Chairman and Managing Director, SIPCOT, 19-A Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District. The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), SIPCOT, 39-A, Nehru Street, CSI School Lane, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District. The Executive Vice Chairman, Tamil Nadu Industrial Guidance & Export Promotion Bureau, 19-A Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 10. Though all the three writ petitions in W.P.Nos.9485 to 9487 of 2008 have been disposed of, by a common order, dated 21.01.2013, giving liberty to the petitioners therein, to make a representation to the Secretary, Industries Department, Chennai, 1st respondent therein, for exempting the lands owned by M/s. Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director, Mr. Rajendran Sabanayagam, Mr. P.Sabanayagam, Ms. Aarthi Sabanayagam, Mr. Ashwin Sabanayagam and Ms. Priya Sabanayagam, for the reasons stated therein, within a period of two weeks and while doing so, the 1st respondent therein, has also been directed to consider the claim, in accordance with law, no such liberty has been given to M/s. Sree Sumangala Metal and Industries (P) Ltd., represented by its Director, Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam and three others, the present writ petitioners, enabling them to make any representation to the Government. M/s. Sree Sumangala Metal and Industries (P) Ltd., the 1st petitioner in W.P.No.3295 of 2014, is not even a party to the common orders. 11. Perusal of the common order, dated 21.01.2013, shows that Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam is the son of Mr. P.Sabanayagam, 2nd petitioner in W.P.No.9485 of 2008. Ms. Nityashree Sabanayagam and Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, represented by their Power Agent, Mrs. 11. Perusal of the common order, dated 21.01.2013, shows that Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam is the son of Mr. P.Sabanayagam, 2nd petitioner in W.P.No.9485 of 2008. Ms. Nityashree Sabanayagam and Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, represented by their Power Agent, Mrs. Kalpana Sabanayagam, (petitioners 3 and 4 in the present W.P.No.3295 of 2014) were the petitioners 3 and 4 in W.P.No.9487 of 2008. 12. W.P.No.9485 of 2008, has been filed by M/s. Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director, Mr. Rajendran Sabanayagam and Mr. P.Sabanayagam. The original prayer made in W.P.No.9485 of 2008, before the amendment, vide order, in M.P.No.2 of 2011, dated 19.12.2012, is as follows: “Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the proceedings by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms. No.40, Industries (SIPCOT-LA), dated 4th March, 2008, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary issued by the first respondent under Section 3(1) of the Act and the consequent notice, dated 12.03.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent under Section 4(2) of the Act and received by the second petitioner on 19.03.2008 in respect of the lands belonging to the second petitioner in S.F.No.61-2B, measuring about 7.15.0 Hectares and S.F.No.61-2D2, measuring about 3.07.5 hectares, totalling 10.22.5 hectares and quash the same.” 13. W.P.Nos.9485 to 9487 of 2008 have been filed by M/s. Sumangala & Fuchs Systems Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam (2nd petitioner in W.P.No.3295 of 2014) and others, and this Court, vide order made in M.P.Nos.1, 1 and 1 of 2011 in W.P.Nos.9485 to 9487 of 2008, dated 19.12.2012, has substituted the same, as “M/s. Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Pvt. Ltd., represented by Mr. Rajedran Sabanayagam. M/s. Sree Sumangala Metal and Industries (P) Ltd., represented by Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam, was not a party to the writ petitions. 14. Ms. Nityashree Sabanayagam and Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, represented by their Power Agent, Mrs. Kalpana Sabanayagam, (petitioners 3 and 4 in W.P.No.3295 of 2014 and petitioners 3 and 4 in W.P.No.9487 of 2008) have filed M.P.No.2 of 2011 in W.P.No.9487 of 2008, seeking permission to withdraw, an extent of 3.67.5 Hectares in S.No.55/2D, belonging to Ms. Nityashree Sabanayagam and an extent of about 3.67.0 Hectares in S.No.55/2E, belonging to Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, from the challenge made in W.P.No.9487 of 2008. Nityashree Sabanayagam and an extent of about 3.67.0 Hectares in S.No.55/2E, belonging to Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, from the challenge made in W.P.No.9487 of 2008. The averments made in the supporting affidavit to M.P.No.2 of 2011, in W.P.No.9487 of 2008, are as follows: "3. I State that the petitioners along with their father, grandfather, cousins and uncle have arrived at a family arrangement which inter alia contemplates the withdrawal of the petitioners from the present writ petition. Hence, the present petitioners seek to withdraw from the present petition thereby leaving only the other petitioners in the main writ to prosecute the writ petition. The first petitioner, Nithyashree Sabanayagam is the owner of about 3.67.5 Hectares in S.No.55/2D and the 2nd petitioner, Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, is the owner of about 3.67.0 Hectares in S.No.55/2E. 4. In the foregoing premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners to withdraw an extent of about 3.67.5 Hectares in S.No.55/2D and an extent of about 3.67.0 Hectares in S.No.55/2E from the present writ petition W.P.No.9487 of 2008 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice." This Court, vide order, dated 19.12.2012, has ordered the said petition, as it was not opposed. The order reads as follows: "This application is filed to permit the petitioners to withdraw the extent of about 3.67.5 Hectares in S.No.55/2D and an extent of about 3.67.0 Hectares in S.No.55/2E, from the writ petition. This application is not opposed. Hence, it is allowed." 15. W.P.No.9485 of 2008, filed by M/s.Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Private Ltd., (formerly M/s. Sumangala & Fuchs Systems Private Ltd.,), represented by its Director, Mr. Rajendran Sabanayagam and Mr. P.Sabanayagam, the challenge pertains to 15.15 Acres. 16. W.P.No.9486 of 2008, filed by Ms. Aarthi Sabanayagam and Mr. Ashwin Sabanayagam along with M/s. Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Private Ltd., (formerly M/s. Sumangala & Fuchs Systems Private Ltd.,), represented by its Director, Mr. Rajendran Sabanayagam, pertains to Survey Nos.55-2A and 55-2B, measuring 7.35.0 Hectares. 17. In W.P.No.9487 of 2008, Ms. Priya Sabanayagam, Ms. Nithyasree Sabanayagam and Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, represented by their Power of Attorney, Kalpana Sabanayagam, along with M/s. Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Private Ltd., (formerly M/s. Sumangala & Fuchs Systems Private Ltd.,), represented by its Director, Mr. Rajendran Sabanayagam, pertains to Survey Nos.55-2A and 55-2B, measuring 7.35.0 Hectares. 17. In W.P.No.9487 of 2008, Ms. Priya Sabanayagam, Ms. Nithyasree Sabanayagam and Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, represented by their Power of Attorney, Kalpana Sabanayagam, along with M/s. Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Private Ltd., (formerly M/s. Sumangala & Fuchs Systems Private Ltd.,), represented by its Director, Mr. Rajendran Sabanayagam, have challenged the Gazettee, in respect of Survey Nos.55-2C, 55-2D and 55-2E, totalling 11.02.0 Hectares. 18. As stated supra, this Court, vide order in M.P.No.2 of 2011 in W.P.No.9487 of 2008, dated 19.12.2012, has granted permission to withdraw an extent of 3.67.5 Hectares in S.No.55/2D and an extent of about 3.67.0 Hectares in S.No.55/2E, from the challenge made in W.P.No.9487 of 2008. 19. The lands withdrawn from the challenge, are owned by Ms. Nityashree Sabanayagam and Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, represented by their Power Agent, Mrs. Kalpana Sabanayagam, (petitioners 3 and 4 in W.P.No.3295 of 2014 and petitioners 3 and 4 in W.P.No.9487 of 2008) respectively. 20. The total extent of lands, withdrawn from the challenge, by Ms. Nityashree Sabanayagam and Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, represented by their Power Agent, Mrs. Kalpana Sabanayagam, (petitioners 3 and 4 in W.P.No.3295 of 2014 and petitioners 3 and 4 in W.P.No.9487 of 2008) is 7.34.5 Acres 21. The extent of lands claimed for exemption, by the petitioners in W.P.No.28143 of 2013, is as follows: Sl.No Name Survey Nos. Extent of lands(in Acres) 1 Aarthi Sabanayagam 55/2B 9.090 2 Ashwin Sabanayagam 55/2A 9.090 3 Priya Sabanayagam 61/2B 9.090 4 P.Sabanayagam/Rajendran Sabanayagam 61/2B & 61/2D2 15.060 Total 42,330 22. As stated supra, liberty has been given, to seek exemption of lands, owned by Tvl.Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Private Ltd., represented by its Director, Mr. P.Sabanayagam/Mr. Rajendran Sabanayagam, Mr. Aarthi Sabanayagam, Mr. Ashwin Sabanayagam, Mr. Priya Sabanayagam, alone. No liberty has been granted to the present petitioners in the present W.P.No.3295 of 2014, to make any representation to the Secretary to the Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. Besides, M/s. Sree Sumangala Metal and Industries (P) Ltd., represented by its Director, Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam, was not at all party to the common order. 23. When the lands in two survey Nos.55/2D and 55/E, have been withdrawn from the challenge made in W.P.No.9487 of 2008, at the instance of Ms. Nityashree Sabanayagam and Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, represented by their Power Agent, Mrs. Karthik Sabanayagam, was not at all party to the common order. 23. When the lands in two survey Nos.55/2D and 55/E, have been withdrawn from the challenge made in W.P.No.9487 of 2008, at the instance of Ms. Nityashree Sabanayagam and Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, represented by their Power Agent, Mrs. Kalpana Sabanayagam, (petitioners 3 and 4 in W.P.No.3295 of 2014 and petitioners 3 and 4 in W.P.No.9487 of 2008), during the course of hearing, a question was posed to Mr. Sanjay Ramasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.3295 of 2014, as to whether, the Secretary to the Government, Industries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, was under any legal obligation, as per the common order of this Court, in W.P.Nos.9485 to 9487 of 2008, dated 21.01.2013, to consider any representation of the petitioners, dated 27.02.2013, said to have been made by M/s. Sree Sumangala Metal and Industries (P) Ltd., in respect of the properties in Survey Nos.55/2D and 55/2E, already withdrawn from the challenge made in W.P.No.9487 of 2008, at the instance of Ms. Nityashree Sabanayagam and Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, represented by their Power Agent, Mrs. Kalpana Sabanayagam, (petitioners 3 and 4 in W.P.No.3295 of 2014 and petitioners 3 and 4 in W.P.No.9487 of 2008). The Learned Counsel for the petitioner replied that the petitioners have not given up their right to seek for exemption. 24. What has been directed to be ordered by this Court in the common order in W.P.Nos. 9485 to 9487 of 2008, dated 21.01.2013, at the risk of repetition, is extracted hereunder: “4. In view of the same, these writ petitions are disposed of, with a direction to the petitioners to make a representation to the first respondent for exempting the lands owned by M/s. Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director, Rajendran Sabanayagam, P.Sabanayagam, Aarthi Sabanayagam, Ashwin Sabanayagam and Priya Sabanayagam, for the reasons, stated therein, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on doing so, the first respondent is directed to consider the claim, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months, thereafter.” 25. Reading of the common order makes it clear that, directions have been granted, to make a representation to the Secretary to the Government, Industries Department, Chennai, for exempting the lands, owned by M/s. Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director, Mr. Rajendran Sabanayagam, Mr. P.Sabanayagam, Ms. Aarthi Sabanayagam, Mr. Ashwin Sabanayagam and Ms. Priya Sabanayagam. While issuing the abovesaid directions, the Court was conscious of the fact that the lands, measuring 3.67.5 Hectares in S.No.55/2D, and belonging to Ms. Nityashree Sabanayagam and lands, measuring 3.67.0 Hectares in Survey No.55/2E, belonging to Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, have been withdrawn from the challenge. When the challenge to the acquisition proceedings have been withdrawn, by deleting the abovesaid survey numbers from the prayer, made in the writ petition, without reserving any right to seek for exemption, this Court has confined the directions only to the said Survey Numbers. Out of seven Survey Nos.55/2A, 55/2B, 55/2C, 55/2D, 55/2E, 61/2B and 61/2D2, subject matter of challenge in W.P.Nos.9485 to 9487 of 2008, Survey Nos.55/2D and 55/2E, have been deleted by Ms. Nityashree Sabanayagam and Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam. 26. Now let me now consider, as to whether, the Secretary to Government, Industries Department, has considered the directions of this Court, with reference to the lands in survey numbers, as per the common order. Representation has been made by Tvl.Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments Private Ltd., and others, dated 13.02.2013, to the Government, for exempting the lands, in Survey Nos.55/2A, 55/2B, 55/2C, 61/2B and 61/2D2, measuring 42.330 Acres. The said representation has been considered and that the Government have passed orders, adverse to the applicants therein. Survey Nos.61/2B and 61/2D2, included in the representation, dated 27.02.2013 of the petitioners, have also been considered. Since Survey Nos.55/2D and 55/2E have been deleted by Ms. Nityashree Sabanayagam and Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, from the challenge, the Secretary to the Government, Industries Department, Chennai, has not considered the same. 27. Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam is none other than the son of Mr. P.Sabanayagam, 2nd petitioner in W.P.No.9485 of 2008. In W.P.No.28143 of 2013, the petitioners are M/s. Sumangala Industrial Parks & Investments Private Limited, represented by its Director, Rajendran Sabanayagam, Mr. P.Sabanaygam, Mr. Ashwin Sabanayagam, Mr. Aarthi Sabanayagam and Mr. Priya Sabanayagam, represented by its Power Agent, Ms. Renuka Sabanaygam. 27. Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam is none other than the son of Mr. P.Sabanayagam, 2nd petitioner in W.P.No.9485 of 2008. In W.P.No.28143 of 2013, the petitioners are M/s. Sumangala Industrial Parks & Investments Private Limited, represented by its Director, Rajendran Sabanayagam, Mr. P.Sabanaygam, Mr. Ashwin Sabanayagam, Mr. Aarthi Sabanayagam and Mr. Priya Sabanayagam, represented by its Power Agent, Ms. Renuka Sabanaygam. In the said writ petition, at paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit, the petitioners therein have stated as follows: “3. I state that the first petitioner is a company incorporated on 28.02.2011, under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, inter alia, in the business of establishing and promoting Industrial Parks, Special Economic Zones (SEZS's) in designated area by the Government of India and Industrial Ventures, both inside India & abroad. The first petitioner has been assigned the role of taking over, managing and processing and executing the SEZ application submitted by its original entity, M/s. Sumangala & Fuchs Systems Pvt. Ltd., later amended and substituted in the name of M/s. Sumangala Industrial Parks and Investments and Private Limited. I state that the first petitioner was formed to facilitate a family arrangement that has been arrived to sort out and to amicably settle the long standing differences between various family members. 4. I state that before adverting further, the relevant facts that are required for better appreciation are narrated below. Originally, the second petitioner, his grand children, Ms. Nithya Sabanayagam, Divya Sabanayagam, Ashwin Sabanayagam, Aarthi Sabanayagam and Priya Sabanaygam (Petitioners 3 to 5 herein) are the owners of the land measuring an extent of 70.60 Acres, comprised in S.F.No.61/2B, 61/2D2, 55/2A, 55/2B, 55/2C, 55/2D and 55/2E, at Irumbedu Village, Kancheepuram District. The second petitioner and other land owners gave their written consent letters to the then M/s. Sumangala & Fuchs Systems Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter called erstwhile company) to utilise the lands for the purpose of formation and development of a SEZ. The lands were meant to be treated as the consideration for the share capital in the company proposed to be set up after the formation of the SEZ, in which, the erstwhile company shall be the primary promoter.” 28. Whereas, now in the present writ petition in W.P.No.3295 of 2014, filed by M/s. Sree Sumangala Metal and Industries (P) Ltd., represented by its Director, Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam, (2) Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam, (3) Ms. Whereas, now in the present writ petition in W.P.No.3295 of 2014, filed by M/s. Sree Sumangala Metal and Industries (P) Ltd., represented by its Director, Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam, (2) Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam, (3) Ms. Nityashree Sabanayagam, represented by its Power Agent, Mrs. Kalpana Sabanayagam, (4) Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, at Paragraphs 3 and 4, have contended as follows: “3.I state that the first petitioner is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, in its original name of Sumangala & Fuchs Systems Pvt. Ltd., on 15.04.1985, later the name was amended and substituted to the present name of M/s. Sree Sumangala Metals and Industries Private Limited, inter alia in the business of manufacturing and supplying metals and other auto mobile ancillaries, establishing and promoting Industrial Parks, Special Economic Zones (SEZS's) in designated area through the Government of India and Industrial Ventures, both inside India & abroad. 4. I state that originally, my father, Mr. Sabanayagam and other family members jointly purchased the entire lands in question, admeasuring 70.60 Acres, comprised in S.F.No.61/2B, 61/2D2, 55/2A, 55/2B, 55/2C, 55/2D and 55/2E, at Irumbedu Village, Kancheepuram District, in the year 2000. The petitioners herein and other land owners gave their written consent letters to the 1st petitioner company (then M/s. Sumangala & Fuchs Systems Pvt. Ltd. Hereinafter called erstwhile company) to utilise the lands for the purpose of formation and development of a SEZ relating to manufacturing auto mobile ancillaries. The lands were meant to be treated as the consideration for the share capital in the company proposed to be set up after the formation of the SEZ, in which, the erstwhile company was to be the primary promoter/shareholder.” 29. Perusal of the representation, dated 27.02.2013, said to have been made by M/s. Sree Sumangala Metal and Industries (P) Ltd., represented by its Director, Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam and others, to the Secretary to the Government, Industries Department, Chennai and in particular, Paragraph No.8 of the said representation, shows that M/s. Sree Sumangala Metal and Industries (P) Ltd., represented by its Director, Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam, was not at all a party to the earlier writ petitions and when Survey Nos.55/2D and 55/E have been specifically deleted, at the instance of Ms. Nityashree Sabanayagam and Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, represented by their Power Agent, Mrs. Karthik Sabanayagam, was not at all a party to the earlier writ petitions and when Survey Nos.55/2D and 55/E have been specifically deleted, at the instance of Ms. Nityashree Sabanayagam and Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, represented by their Power Agent, Mrs. Kalpana Sabanayagam, (petitioners 3 and 4 in W.P.No.3295 of 2014 and petitioners 3 and 4 in W.P.No.9487 of 2008), the question to be considered by this Court, whether the petitioners in the present W.P.No.3295 of 2014, can make any application, giving an impression to the Government, as if the Court has given liberty to M/s. Sree Sumangala Metal and Industries (P) Ltd., represented by its Director, Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam and others, to make any representation, for exemption of the lands in Survey Nos.55/2D and 55/2E and whether there is any suppression of material facts of deletion of Survey Nos.55/2D and 55/2E, from the very challenge made in W.P.No.9487 of 2008 itself, and for this purpose, this Court deems it fit to extract Paragraph 8 of the representation, dated 27.02.2013, which is as follows: “8. Pending the above writ petitions, some of the family members opted for SEZ while other family members wanted to shift their own factories which are in various places around Chennai to a single location, and hence, wanted to withdraw from the proposed SEZ. Sumangala and Fuchs Systems Pvt. Ltd., which was the original application of SEZ is changed to Sree Sumangala Metals and Industries Pvt. Ltd., is an auto component industry. It was decided that part of the lands originally proposed for SEZ would be kept for auto component industry at Sriperumbudur as it is the auto hub, having various auto mobile manufacturing units, such as, Nissan, Hyundai, Komatsu, Ford, etc., All the said major auto manufacturers/ancillary units are customers of Sree Sumangala Metals and Industries Pvt. Ltd. In view of the same, it was decided that the balance extent of lands would continue as part of the proposed SEZ. The said petitioners have already filed necessary application for withdrawal as parties from the said writ petitions which had been allowed, since no objection was raised by the respondents in the writ petition. The above writs had thereafter been disposed by the Court to consider and hence, the representation is being made by the petitioners for SIPCOT to consider the case on merits.” 30. The above writs had thereafter been disposed by the Court to consider and hence, the representation is being made by the petitioners for SIPCOT to consider the case on merits.” 30. It is also relevant to extract paragraph No.16 of the abovesaid representation, as follows: “16. In view of the above, it is submitted our representation to consider that M/s. Sree Sumangala Metals and Industries Pvt. Ltd., (formerly Ms. Sumangala Fuchs Systems Pvt. Ltd.) for which Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam continues to be the Managing Director, in respect of the said lands in respect of an extent of 28.22 acres in Survey Nos.55/2D, 55/2E, 61/2B & 61/2D part be permitted to use the same for its industrial purpose and consequently are exempt from the proposed acquisition proceedings” 31. Nowhere in the representation, dated 27.02.2013, the petitioners have made any reference to the specific aspect of deletion of Survey Nos.55/2D and 55/2E, from the challenge made in W.P.No.9487 of 2008. On the contrary, M/s. Sree Sumangala Metal and Industries (P) Ltd., Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam has made a statement, that application has been filed only for withdrawing themselves, as parties to the abovesaid writ petitions, which has been allowed. Once the challenge to the acquisition proceedings to certain survey numbers is withdrawn by the land owners, without reserving any right to make any further representation, the same becomes final. It is to be noted that in the common order made in W.P.Nos.9485 to 9487 of 2008, dated 21.01.2013, no right has been granted to the present writ petitioners to make any representation nor the petitioners have reserved any right to make any representation for exemption from acquisition. 32. When Survey Nos.55/2D and 55/2E have been deleted at the instance of Ms. Nityashree Sabanayagam and Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, represented by their Power Agent, Mrs. Kalpana Sabanayagam, (petitioners 3 and 4 in W.P.No.3295 of 2014), a duty is cast upon M/s. Sree Sumangala Metal and Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai, the present petitioners to bring it to the notice of the Secretary to the Government, Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department, Chennai, about the deletion of the abovesaid survey numbers, from the challenge made in W.P.No.9487 of 2008. Instead, M/s. Sree Sumangala Metal and Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai, represented by its Director, Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam, (1st petitioner in W.P.No.3295 of 2014), has made a reference that it was only a deletion of names from the array of parties. Instead, M/s. Sree Sumangala Metal and Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai, represented by its Director, Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam, (1st petitioner in W.P.No.3295 of 2014), has made a reference that it was only a deletion of names from the array of parties. On that basis, representation, dated 27.02.2013, has been made to the Government to pass orders. 33. Suppression of deletion of abovesaid Survey Nos.55/2D and 55/2E, from the challenge, is per se apparent, on the face of record. Attempt to justify the non-disclosure of deletion of survey numbers from the challenge made in W.P.No.9487 of 2008, which in the opinion of this Court, amount to giving up the right to challenge the acquisition proceedings or waiver of right over the properties, with reference to Paragraph No.8 of the representation, dated 27.02.2013 and the averments, at Paragraph 11 of the supporting affidavit to W.P.No.3295 of 2014, is not acceptable to this Court. 34. At this juncture, Paragraph No.11 of the supporting affidavit in W.P.No.3295 of 2014, is worth reproduction, by which, it could be deduced, as to how, the petitioners herein, have made an attempt to project a case, as if, permission was granted by this Court, to withdraw the abovesaid survey numbers and enabled them, to approach the authority. It is as follows: “11. I state that in the mean time, vide common order, dated 21.01.2013, this Hon'ble Court had disposed off the writ petitions with a direction to approach the 1st respondent herein for exemption, the 3rd and 4th petitioners herein had withdrawn their writ petitions so as to approach the concerned authorities. I further state that subsequently, the petitioners herein made their representation, dated 27.02.2013 to the first and second respondents and also to the requesting body, i.e., SIPCOT and authorities concerned. However, the first respondent has till date not considered the said representation of the petitioners and has passed an order vide its letter No.2542/SIPCOT-LA/2013-2, dated 29.04.2013 with regard to the 42.33 acres of land owned by my brother and his family members which are adjacent to the petitioners lands. The same has been done without considering the genuine grounds raised and without considering the geographical location of the lands which are sought to be acquired and the purpose for which the lands are proposed to be used for etc., without assigning any reasons.” 35. The contention of Ms. Nityashree Sabanayagam and Ms. The same has been done without considering the genuine grounds raised and without considering the geographical location of the lands which are sought to be acquired and the purpose for which the lands are proposed to be used for etc., without assigning any reasons.” 35. The contention of Ms. Nityashree Sabanayagam and Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, petitioners 3 and 4 in W.P.No.3295 of 2014 that, they have only withdrawn themselves from the writ petition and not the challenge to the acquisition proceedings, with reference to the lands in Survey Nos.55/2D and 55/2E, so as to approach the concerned authority, in the opinion of this Court, is not the correct version of the facts, discernible from the orders of this Court. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that his clients, still maintain their position, as per the averments contained in the representation, dated 27.02.2013, this Court is not inclined to accept the same, in view of the categorical orders, passed by this Court in M.P.No.2 of 2011 in W.P.No.9847 of 2008, dated 19.12.2012. 36. The initial challenge in W.P.No.9487 of 2008, was in respect of G.O.Ms.No.53, Industries (SIPCOT-LA), dated 10th March, 2008, issued by the first respondent and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary published at Chennai, Monday, March 10, 2008, in respect of the lands, belonging to the 2nd petitioner, Ms. Priya Sabanayagam, in S.F.No.55-2C, measuring about 3.67.5 Hectares and lands belonging to the 3rd petitioner, Ms. Nithyashree Sabanayagam in S.F.No.55-2D, measuring about 3.67.5 Hectares and lands belonging to the fourth petitioner, Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, in S. F.No.55-2E, measuring about 3.67.0 Hectares, totalling 11.02.0 Hectares and the consequent notices under Section 4(2), dated 22.03.2008 issued by the District Collector, Kancheepuram, third respondent herein. 37. Ms.Nityashree Sabanayagam and Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, represented by their Power Agent, Mrs. Kalpana Sabanayagam, (petitioners 3 and 4 in W.P.No.3295 of 2014) have restricted their challenge and sought for permission, to withdraw an extent of 3.67.5 Hectares, in Survey No.55/2D and an extent of 3.67.0 Hectares in Survey No.55/2E, and that the same has been ordered, without granting any liberty to them or to any other person. 38. No right has been reserved to the abovesaid two persons, to question the land acquisition proceedings, which has already culminated into an order in G.O.Ms.No.53, Industries (SIPCOT-LA), dated 10th March, 2008 or seek for exemption. 38. No right has been reserved to the abovesaid two persons, to question the land acquisition proceedings, which has already culminated into an order in G.O.Ms.No.53, Industries (SIPCOT-LA), dated 10th March, 2008 or seek for exemption. In the common order made in W.P.Nos.9845 to 9847 of 2008, dated 21.01.2013, no right has been granted to them, to make any representation, for exemption from the acquisition proceedings. In the opinion of this Court, the effect of deletion of the abovesaid survey numbers, is that, the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings, in respect of the abovesaid survey numbers, is totally waived. Once the abovesaid persons, viz., Ms. Nityashree Sabanayagam and Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabanayagam, represented by their Power Agent, Mrs. Kalpana Sabanayagam, (petitioners 3 and 4 in W.P.No.3295 of 2014), themselves have come forward to delete the abovesaid survey numbers, from the challenge made in W.P.No.9487 of 2008, subsequently by sending representation, M/s. Sree Sumangala Metal and Industries (P) Ltd., rep., by its Director, Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam and others, cannot call upon the Secretary to the Government, Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department, Chennai, to decide the issue of exemption. An order passed in a writ petition, withdrawing certain survey numbers, without leave from the Court, operates as a res-judicata, in any proceedings. 39. In the supporting affidavit to the present writ petition, at Paragraph 3, though Mr. Karthik Sabanayagam, Son of P.Sabanayagam, claiming himself to be one of the Directors of M/s. Sree Sumangala Metal and Industries (P) Ltd., has stated that the abovesaid company was duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, in its original name of Sumangala & Fuchs Systems Pvt. Ltd., on 15.04.1985 and later on, the name has been amended and substituted as M/s. Sree Sumangala Metals and Industries Private Limited, the survey numbers involved in the writ petitions, remain one and the same. 40. On the aspect of suppression, this Court deems it fit to consider the following decisions, (i) In Arunima Baruah v. Union of India reported in 2007 (6) SCC 120 , wherein, at Paragraphs 11 to 14, it held as follows: “11. The Court's jurisdiction to determine the lis between the parties, therefore, may be viewed from the human rights concept of access to justice. The Court's jurisdiction to determine the lis between the parties, therefore, may be viewed from the human rights concept of access to justice. The same, however, would not mean that the Court will have no jurisdiction to deny equitable relief when the complainant does not approach the court with a pair of clean hands; but to what extent such relief should be denied is the question. 12. It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the relief. If the fact suppressed is not material for determination of the lis between the parties, the court may not refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands. But even if the said dirt is removed and the hands become clean, whether the relief would still be denied is the question. 14. In Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 16, pp. 874-76, the law is stated in the following terms: “1303. He who seeks equity must do equity.—In granting relief peculiar to its own jurisdiction a court of equity acts upon the rule that he who seeks equity must do equity. By this it is not meant that the court can impose arbitrary conditions upon a plaintiff simply because he stands in that position on the record. The rule means that a man who comes to seek the aid of a court of equity to enforce a claim must be prepared to submit in such proceedings to any directions which the known principles of a court of equity may make it proper to give; he must do justice as to the matters in respect of which the assistance of equity is asked. In a court of law it is otherwise: when the plaintiff is found to be entitled to judgment, the law must take its course; no terms can be imposed. 1305. In a court of law it is otherwise: when the plaintiff is found to be entitled to judgment, the law must take its course; no terms can be imposed. 1305. He who comes into equity must come with clean hands.—A court of equity refuses relief to a plaintiff whose conduct in regard to the subject-matter of the litigation has been improper. This was formerly expressed by the maxim ‘he who has committed iniquity shall not have equity’, and relief was refused where a transaction was based on the plaintiff’s fraud or misrepresentation, or where the plaintiff sought to enforce a security improperly obtained, or where he claimed a remedy for a breach of trust which he had himself procured and whereby he had obtained money. Later it was said that the plaintiff in equity must come with perfect propriety of conduct, or with clean hands. In application of the principle a person will not be allowed to assert his title to property which he has dealt with so as to defeat his creditors or evade tax, for he may not maintain an action by setting up his own fraudulent design. The maxim does not, however, mean that equity strikes at depravity in a general way; the cleanliness required is to be judged in relation to the relief sought, and the conduct complained of must have an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for; it must be depravity in a legal as well as in a moral sense. Thus, fraud on the part of a minor deprives him of his right to equitable relief notwithstanding his disability. Where the transaction is itself unlawful it is not necessary to have recourse to this principle. In equity, just as at law, no suit lies in general in respect of an illegal transaction, but this is on the ground of its illegality, not by reason of the plaintiff’s demerits.” (ii) In Prestige Lights Ltd., v. State Bank of India reported in 2007 (8) SCC 449 , at Paragraphs 33, 34 and 35, the Apex Court held as follows: "33. It is thus clear that though the appellant- Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is thus clear that though the appellant- Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 34. The object underlying the above principle has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJ KB 257 : 116 LT 136], in the following words: "(I)t has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should made a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help the Court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside, any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement". (emphasis supplied) 34. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible." 41. The material fact for the purpose of the present lis, is whether the petitioners either in their representation or in the supporting affidavit have disclosed the deletion or withdrawal of Survey Nos.55/2D and 55/2E, from the challenge made in W.P.No.9487 of 2008, in the representation, dated 27.02.2013 or to this Court, in the supporting affidavit. In the light of the decisions, stated supra, going through the materials on record, this Court is of the view that there is suppression of a material fact. The petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. 42. Deletion of Survey Nos.55/2D and 55/2E, from the challenge, may also amount to withdrawal of the writ petition, in respect of the abovesaid survey numbers. It should be noted that in W.P.No.9847 of 2008, the challenge to the acquisition notification, was in respect of three survey numbers, namely, 1. Lands, measuring 3.67.5 Hectares in Survey No.55/2C, belonging to Ms.Priya Sabayanayagam. 2. Lands, measuring 3.67.5 Hectares in Survey No.55/2D, belonging to Ms.Nityashree Sabayanayagam. 3. Lands, measuring 3.67.0 Hectares in Survey No.55/2E, belonging to Ms. Divyalakshmi Sabayanayagam. Out of which, two survey numbers in S.Nos.55/2D and 55/2E, have been deleted. Withdrawal of Survey Numbers, from the challenge, without reserving any right, amounts to waiver of the relief, sought for. 43. In Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti reported in 1997 (2) SCC 534 , at Paragraph 13, the Supreme Court, held that, "He filed the writ petition in first instance but withdrew the same without permission of the Court with liberty to file the second writ petition which was dismissed. Therefore, the second writ petition is not maintainable as held by the High Court in applying the correct principle of law." 44. This Court had an occasion to consider the similar plea in Rev. Fr. Therefore, the second writ petition is not maintainable as held by the High Court in applying the correct principle of law." 44. This Court had an occasion to consider the similar plea in Rev. Fr. J.G.Jesudas, etc., v. The Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 1998 Writ.L.R. 756. Following a decision of the Supreme Court in 1987 (1) SCC 5 (Sarguja Transport v. STAT), withdrawal of an earlier Writ Petition amounts to waiver of the relief sought for, and if any second Writ Petition is filed, it amounts to abuse of process of law. The relevant paragraph of the Judgment of the Supreme Court, as extracted in Rev. Fr. J.G.Jesudas's case, is as follows: "The question for our consideration is whether it would or would not advance the cause of justice if the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code is adopted in respect of writ petitions filed under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India also. It is common knowledge that very often after a writ petition is heard for some time when the petitioner or his counsel finds that the court is not likely to pass an order admitting the petition, request is made by the petitioner or by his counsel to permit the petitioner to withdraw from the writ petition without seeking permission to institute a fresh writ petition. A Court which is unwilling to admit the petition would not ordinarily grant liberty to file a fresh petition while it may just agree to permit the withdrawal of the petition. It is plain that when once a writ petition filed in a High Court is withdrawn by the petitioner himself he is precluded from filing an appeal against the order passed in the writ petition because he cannot be considered as a party aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court. He may as stated in Daryao v. State of U.P. in a case involving the question of enforcement of fundamental rights file a petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the High Court. He may as stated in Daryao v. State of U.P. in a case involving the question of enforcement of fundamental rights file a petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the High Court. The relevant observation of this Court in Daryao case1 is to be found at p. 593 and it is as follows: “If the petition is dismissed as withdrawn it cannot be a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32, because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the court. We wish to make it clear that the conclusions thus reached by us are confined only to the point of res judicata which has been argued as a preliminary issue in these writ petitions and no other.” The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that article. On this point the decision in Daryao case is of no assistance. But we are of the view that the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once again." (emphasis supplies) 45. When adjudication of lis, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, involves equity and justice, and where the conduct of the parties to the lis, obligates true disclosure of facts, on the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that there is a clear suppression of material facts, and hence, equitable and extraordinary remedy cannot be extended to the petitioners. 46. In the light of the decisions, stated supra, and the discussion, there is no illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference. 46. In the light of the decisions, stated supra, and the discussion, there is no illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, without going into the merits of the case. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.