Judgment : This Review Petition is filed seeking review of order, dated 18.06.2013, in Writ Petition No.40072 of 2012. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the Review Petition. The petitioner is a third party to Writ Petition No.40072 of 2012. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the said Writ Petition for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.4 in registering the newly elected Managing Committee of respondent No.1-society, as illegal, contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act’) and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to them under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Respondents 1 and 2 also sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.4 to register the list of the Managing Committee of respondent No.1-society. It was pleaded in the affidavit, filed in support of the said Writ Petition, that respondent No.1-society was a body registered on 09.05.1989 under the provisions of the Act with registration No.83 of 1989. It was averred that respondent No.1-society was constituted with the objects of imparting oriental, general, professional, technical and vocational education and to spread religious, social, cultural, economic and scientific knowledge; that it obtained permission from the Government of Andhra Pradesh to start Polytechnic College under the name and style of “Tayyib Muslim Polytechnic College” (respondent No.2) in the year 1994 and that the same is running without any complaint. It was further averred that as per the constitution of the bye-laws of the society, the Governing Body consists of President, Vice-President, Secretary, Joint-Secretary, Treasurer and 13 Executive Committee Members; that as per the said bye-laws, the General Body shall elect the office bearers and accordingly, the election for new office bearers and Executive Committee Members was held on 12.07.2012; that in the said election, one S. Khader Bhasha, the deponent of the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, was elected as the Secretary for the period from 12.07.2012 to 11.07.2013; that under Section 9 of the Act, respondent No.1 has intimated the same to respondent No.4 through letter, dated 16.07.2012; that on 19.07.2012, respondent No.1-society submitted a list of its Managing Committee to respondent No.4 for registration; and that respondent No.4 has received the said list on the same day. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 further averred that under Section 9 of the Act, respondent No.4 is obligated to accept the list of the names and addresses of the members of the Managing Committee and the list is to be filed by the society within 15 days from the date of holding of meeting of the General Body. It was further averred that as respondent No.1 is required to seek renewal of permission for each year, it has submitted its application on 26.12.2012 to AICTE and the Board of Technical Education and Training, State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, for renewal of the permission granted in favour of respondent No.2; that the authorities concerned insisted for furnishing the certificate of Registration of the newly elected Executive Committee of respondent No.1-society for grant of renewal of the permission; and that as respondent No.4 failed to register the list even after the lapse of five months ‘for the reasons best known to him’, the said action on his part was being questioned in the Writ Petition. Respondent No.4 filed a counter-affidavit. Respondent No.4 filed a counter-affidavit. The material averments stated therein are as under : That the society by name Tayyib Muslim Welfare Society, Kadapa was registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act’), in the year 1989 with registration No.83/1989; that as per the office records of respondent No.4, the society filed list of the members of the Governing Body up to the year 1997; that the person, who claimed to be the President of respondent No.1-socieity, has submitted lists of Governing Body for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 on 19.07.2012 for filing in the office records; that the Society was renewed up to 1997; that the lists of the Governing Body for the years 1998 to 2009 were not submitted; that the lists of the Governing Body for the years 2010 to 2012 were submitted for filing; that “the society is under dispute”; that the society again submitted the lists of the Governing Body for the years 1998 to 2012 on 19.01.2013; that as Writ Petition No.40072 of 2012 was already filed, the list submitted on 19.01.2013 was kept in abeyance; that as the registering authority, he does not have any interest in either of the parties; that the list of the Governing Body sent by the Committee was kept in abeyance only on account of pendency of Writ Petition No.40072 of 2012; and that as there is a dispute between two groups, the appropriate remedy for the parties was to approach the competent civil Court under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act. Upon considering the pleadings of the respective parties, this Court has disposed of Writ Petition No.40072 of 2012 by order, dated 18.06.2013, wherein it has observed that under Section 9 of the Act, the society shall, within 15 days from the date on which the General Body meeting was held, furnish a list to the Registrar of Societies every year, which shall contain the names of the members of the Managing Committee and the office bearers entrusted with the management affairs of the society; that the said provision does not envisage any registration of the newly elected Managing Committee members or other office bearers; and that it only envisages the society sending a list and it is implied therefrom that the list sent shall be taken on file by the Registrar of Societies. This Court further observed that the reason mentioned by respondent No.4 in the counter-affidavit, that there is a dispute, hardly constitutes any ground for him not to receive the list sent by respondent No.1-society and that the receiving of the list by respondent No.4 does not mean that he is recognizing the elected body. This Court further opined that if there is any dispute relating to the election, the aggrieved party has to approach the competent Court questioning the election and unless the competent Court passes an order nullifying the election, respondent No.4 is bound to receive the list sent by the management of respondent No.1-society and place the same on file under Section 9 of the Act. Accordingly, a directions was issued to respondent No.4 to keep the list sent by respondent No.1-society in the appropriate register and furnish the evidence in regard to the writ petitioners as and when required. The present Review Petition is filed by one Md. Hussain Ahmad Sardari claiming to be the Secretary-cum-Correspondent of respondent No.1-society. In his affidavit, filed in support of the application filed for grant of leave, he has, inter alia, stated that in the elections held for the Governing Body on 05.07.2011, he was elected as the Secretary of respondent No.1-society; that out of the General Body strength of 68 members as on that date, 61 members were present in the meeting; that the General Body authorized the new Committee to submit a list of the new Governing Body to the District Registrar of Societies; and that accordingly, through letter No.101/TNWS/KDP, dated 18.07.2011, the list of Governing Body, which was elected on 05.07.2011, was submitted to respondent No.4. It is further averred that by fabrication of certain records, the deponent of the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, submitted his own list of the members of the purported Governing Body stating that the General Body meeting was held on 09.07.2011 and that he was elected as the Secretary. It is further averred that by fabrication of certain records, the deponent of the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, submitted his own list of the members of the purported Governing Body stating that the General Body meeting was held on 09.07.2011 and that he was elected as the Secretary. It is further pleaded that vide notice in Kadapa No.G1/SOC/2011, dated 28.07.2011, the District Registrar of Societies informed him as well as S. Khader Basha, who represented respondent Nos.1 & 2, that the rival lists submitted by both of them on behalf of two rival groups are kept in abeyance in view of pendency of the cases and litigation in the Court making it clear that list will be placed in the register upon receiving the relevant Court orders; that questioning the said action of the District Registrar of Societies, the said Khadar Basha filed Writ Petition No.23911 of 2011 by impleading the review petitioner as respondent No.3; that in WPMP.No.29320 of 2011 filed therein, this Court declined to grant interim directions to respondent No.4 to register the list of the Governing Body; that the said Writ Petition is still pending; that respondent No.1 has suppressed the fact of his filing Writ Petition No.23911 of 2011; and that even respondent No.4 in his counter-affidavit did not disclose issuance of the notice by him to both the rival groups on 28.07.2011 and made a vague statement about the pendency of litigation without giving the details of the said litigation. In ground No.9 of the Review Petition, the petitioner has stated that O.S.No.364 of 2011, filed by the rival group in the name of Tayyib Muslim Welfare Society against S. Khadar Basha and two others, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, is pending. In ground No.9 of the Review Petition, the petitioner has stated that O.S.No.364 of 2011, filed by the rival group in the name of Tayyib Muslim Welfare Society against S. Khadar Basha and two others, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, is pending. The gravaman of the allegation made by the petitioner in this Review Petition is that S. Khadar Basha, who filed Writ Petition No.23911 of 2011, representing respondent Nos.1 and 2, indulged in deliberate suppression of material facts, namely; (1) the fact that serious disputes between the two groups of management of respondent No.1-society persist; (2) the fact that for the year 20112012, a list was sent to the District Registrar of Societies by each of the two rival groups; (3) the fact that through letter, dated 28.07.2011, respondent No.4 has categorically informed both the rival groups that the lists sent by them cannot be entered in the register in view of the serious disputes among them which are pending in the Courts; and (4) the fact that Writ Petition No.23911 of 2011 filed for an identical relief for the previous year was pending and an interim order was declined therein. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-writ petitioners strenuously contended that his clients have not indulged in suppression of the material facts. He has argued that Writ Petition No.23911 of 2011 pertains to the list sent in relation to the election of the Governing Body for the year 2011-12 and that therefore, the same has no relevance for the subsequent year in respect of which Writ Petition No.40072 of 2012 was filed. He has relied upon order, dated 07.04.2011, of this Court in Writ Petition No.22628 of 2010, to buttress his submission that in view of the legal position elucidated in the said order, there was no need for the writ petitioners to refer to the previous litigation. The main question that falls for consideration in this Review Petition is whether respondent Nos.1 and 2 have indulged in suppression of the material facts and derived advantage of securing an order behind the back of the review petitioner? The fact that serious disputes are persisting between two groups over management of respondent No.1-society is not in dispute. The main question that falls for consideration in this Review Petition is whether respondent Nos.1 and 2 have indulged in suppression of the material facts and derived advantage of securing an order behind the back of the review petitioner? The fact that serious disputes are persisting between two groups over management of respondent No.1-society is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that when two lists were submitted by the two rival groups for the years 2011-2012, respondent No.4 has issued letter, dated 28.07.2011, stating that in view of pendency of litigation between the two rival groups, the lists sent by them cannot be entered in the register till resolution of those disputes. The facts that questioning the said communication, Writ Petition No.23911 of 2011 was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2-writ petitioners, its pendency and rejection of interim order by this Court therein are also not in dispute. Indeed, it is an admitted fact that O.S.No.364 of 2011, filed in the name of Tayyib Muslim Welfare Society, represented by one Shaik Hussain, S/o Imam Saheb, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the management and affairs of the society, is pending in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa and S. Khadar Basha, who represented respondent Nos.1 and 2-writ petitioners, is defendant No.2 in the said suit. In the face of the above incontrovertible facts, I am unable to comprehend the plea of respondent Nos.1 and 2-writ petitioners, as sought to be forcibly put forth by their learned counsel, that all the previous litigation ceases to be relevant as a fresh election was held. This, in my earnest opinion, is a cloak to cover up the blatant suppression of material facts indulged in by respondent Nos.1 and 2-writ petitioners in the Writ Petition. It is wholly preposterous for the writ petitioners to plead that the facts of pendency of a civil suit and Writ Petition No.23911 of 2011, filed against the communication, dated 28.07.2011, issued by respondent No.4, wherein it is stated that in view of the pendency of the disputes, the lists sent by the two rival groups cannot be entered in the register, are not relevant and material for considering the relief claimed in the subsequent Writ Petition i.e., Writ Petition No.40072 of 2012, filed purportedly on a fresh cause of action, namely; a fresh election. It is not the case of the writ petitioners that there was any compromise between the parties during the pendency of Writ Petition No.23911 of 2011 or that the disputes were adjudicated by the competent Courts during the pendency of the said Writ Petition. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot pretend as if by the process of their own interpretation, they bona fide felt that the pendency of a civil suit and the Writ Petition for the previous year are not relevant to be mentioned in the subsequent Writ Petition. Non-disclosure of the above discussed facts by respondent Nos.1 and 2-writ petitioners is very much patent. The writ petitioners cannot be conceded with the liberty of selectively projecting the facts of a case without explaining the litigious background. Had the facts, namely; that respondent No.4 had declined to receive the lists for the previous year and issued letter, dated 28.07.2011, communicating the same to the both rival groups and the pendency of Writ Petition No.23911 of 2011 been brought to its notice surely, this Court would not have passed order, dated 18.06.2013, in Writ Petition No.40072 of 2012. The opinion expressed by this Court in order, dated 07.04.2011, in Writ Petition No.22628 of 2010, was the general legal position and respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot take shelter under the said order to justify suppression of the material facts relating to the pendency of the disputes between the two rival groups. Had respondent Nos.1 and 2 brought the fact of pendency of Writ Petition No.23911 of 2011 to its notice, this Court would have heard the said Writ Petition along with Writ Petition No.40072 of 2012 and passed a comprehensive order. Another blatant act committed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is non-impleadment of the review petitioner in Writ Petition No.40072 of 2012, who was impleaded as respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.23911 of 2011. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, sought to justify this action by pleading that the review petitioner has ceased to be a member of the Society as he failed to pay the subscription. This plea, in my opinion, is a mere façade to cover-up the unwholesome conduct of the writ petitioners. It is not the pleaded case of the writ petitioners that a competent forum has adjudged the review petitioner as having ceased to be a member of the Society. This plea, in my opinion, is a mere façade to cover-up the unwholesome conduct of the writ petitioners. It is not the pleaded case of the writ petitioners that a competent forum has adjudged the review petitioner as having ceased to be a member of the Society. This omission on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2, as rightly pointed out the by Sri P. Veera Reddy, the learned senior counsel for the review petitioner, was obviously designed to secure an order behind the back of the review petitioner. The law is trite that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary. A person who comes with the tainted hands does not deserve the indulgence of this Court. The stream of justice has to be kept clean and pure and nobody can be allowed to pollute the same by touching with impure hands. A person who approaches the court for grant of any relief has a duty and obligation to disclose all the relevant material facts having a bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. In Oswal Fats and Oils Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division , while emphasizing the need for a litigant to disclose material/important facts, the Apex Court held : “It is settled law that a person who approaches the Court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. In other words, he owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and refrain from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. If he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure system of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person.” Respondent Nos.1 and 2-writ petitioners have, undoubtedly, polluted the stream of justice by indulging in deliberate suppression of the material facts and gained undue advantage of securing an order behind the back of the review petitioner without impleading him in Writ Petition No.40072 of 2012. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Review WPMP is allowed, the order, dated 18.06.2013, in Writ Petition No.40072 of 2012 is recalled and the same is set aside. As respondent Nos.1 and 2writ petitioners have indulged in deliberate suppression of the material facts, Writ Petition No.40072 of 2012 is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) payable to the Chief Justice Relief Fund within a period of one month from today. As a sequel, WPMP.No.7709 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.