JUDGMENT : Let the affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record. 2. The subject-matter of challenge in the instant writ proceeding – a remand application dated 8th September, 2015 – arises due to evasion of payment of service tax by the petitioner. 3. In the instant writ petition the petitioner seeks, inter alia, issuance of a mandatory order commanding the concerned respondent authorities to cancel and/or withdraw and/or rescind of the remand application dated 8th September, 2015. The petitioner has also sought for a mandatory direction upon the concerned respondent authorities to determine his dues on account of Service Tax from all his three-business entities separately before initiating any recovery proceedings or before taking any further coercive action against the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandatory order directing the concerned respondent authorities to make final adjudication based on the Court’s order dated 3rd November, 2015. 4. It is quite evident that a criminal proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner, which is pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore (South 24 Parganas). The records reveal that the petitioner was taken into custody and he subsequently applied for bail before this Court. An order was passed on 3rd November, 2015, whereby bail was granted primarily based on an undertaking given by the petitioner that he would pay the balance amount out of a total sum, which was more than Rupees three and half crores, within a fortnight after he was released on bail. Thus, the order dated 3rd November, 2015, passed by the High Court, releasing the petitioner on bail was on the basis of an undertaking given by him before this Court. 5. A person who approaches this Court invoking its high prerogative Constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, essentially seeks relief which is discretionary in nature. For such discretionary relief to be granted, the petitioner has to demonstrate unimpeachable bona fides. This is precisely why a writ petitioner requires to make in his/her petition a specific averment to the effect that the application is made bona fide and for the ends of justice. 6. In the facts of this instant case, this application is not made bona fide by the petitioner. This is precisely why a writ petitioner requires to make in his/her petition a specific averment to the effect that the application is made bona fide and for the ends of justice. 6. In the facts of this instant case, this application is not made bona fide by the petitioner. The reason is, a person who gives an undertaking before this Court – which evidently is not complied with, subsequently – and gets benefit of an order based on such undertaking and thereafter seeks to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not a person worthy to be considered for being granted such discretionary reliefs, in the absence of palpable demonstration of bona fide conduct before seeking such discretionary reliefs. 7. For reasons stated above, the writ petitioner is liable to be summarily dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.