JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner, namely, Ashok Kumar Bajpai showing himself to be the Manager of the Committee of Management of Shri Shitla Sahai Mauni, Swami Inter College, Rae-bareli, has sought for a direction to the opposite party No. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 4.5.2016 with regard to renewal of the petitioner’s society. 3. This Court while entertaining the writ petition vide order dated 19.7.2016 directed the State Counsel to seek instructions as to why the renewal of the petitioner’s society is not being done by the concerned authorities. On 21.7.2016, the State Counsel apprised the Court that neither the petitioner holds any post in the society nor he is a member of the general body. Further, on earlier occasions, petitioner had filed two writ petitions almost with the same allegations as contained in the instant writ petition with slight modification in reliefs clause. The said writ petitions are Writ Petition No. 8494 (MS) of 2013; Ashok Kumar Bajpai v. Registrar, Firms Scoeities and Chits and writ Petition No. 7829(MS) of 2014; Committee of Management, Shri Shitla Sahai Mauni Swami Inter College v. State of U.P. and others. The said writ petitions were withdrawn without leave being granted by the Court. Therefore, the instant writ petition for the same cause of action is not maintainable and the petitioner has dis-entitled himself from getting any relief from the Court as he has misused the process of law. 4. In these circumstance, this Court directed for listing of the said writ petition on 25.7.2016 alongwith the record of earlier writ petitions. 5. From 25.7.2016 till 5.8.2016, the case was adjourned on ten occasions on the ground of illness of Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate. 6. Today, Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with a innocuous prayer for a direction to the respondents to decide the representation preferred by him for renewal of the registration. On repeated query, the learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any statutory provision which permits him to make such a representation. On repeated query, the learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any statutory provision which permits him to make such a representation. He also failed to give any satisfactory answer with regard to maintainability of instant writ petition as earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioner with almost same averments with slight change in the prayer clause has already been dismissed as withdrawn. 7. On scrutiny, it comes out that Sri Ashok Kumar Bajpai had earlier filed writ petition No. 8494 (MS) of 2013 seeking inter alia for a direction to grant renewal certificate of the society, namely, Shri Sheetala Sahai Mauni Swami Samiti, Dalmau, Raebareli having registration No. 1291/1981-82 at file No. I-60588 and to decide the representation dated 19.8.2013. In paragraph 2 of the said writ petition, the petitioner has averred that he is the Manager of the Institution, namely, Shri Sheetala Sahai Mauni Swami Samiti Inter College, Govindpur Madha, Raebareli. The said writ petition was filed by one Sri Somesh Tripathi, Advocate, who later on filed C. M.Appln. No. 6821 of 2016 for withdrawal of the writ petition. The said application was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 8.4.2016. 8. Surprisingly, during pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 8494(MS) of 2013, this time through the Committee of Management, Shri Shitla Sahai Mauni Swami Inter College, Raibarelly, through its Manager Sri Ashok Kumar Bajpai, filed another Writ Petition bearing No. 7829 (MS) of 2014 with similar allegations but with a slight change in the prayer to the effect that opposite parties be directed to renew the society Sri Shitla Sahai Mauni Swami Samiti, Vishundas Govindpur Madhav, Raebarelly for the term July, 2009 to July, 2014 and from July, 2014 to July, 2019. It is interesting to note that after filing of the counter-affidavit, again C.M.Application No. 128080 of 2015 was moved by the petitioner alongwith an affidavit sworn by aforesaid, Sri Ashok Kumar Bajpai indicating therein that he wants to withdraw the writ petition due to some personal reasons. 9. The said application for withdrawal of the writ petition was allowed vide order dated 14.12.2015 and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. 10. 9. The said application for withdrawal of the writ petition was allowed vide order dated 14.12.2015 and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. 10. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking the relief, as aforesaid knowing fully well that he has got the identical writ petitions dismissed as withdrawn and there is no liberty of the Court for filing fresh writ petition on the same subject and for same cause of action. It is worthwhile to mention that Sri Anil Kumar Tewari was the Counsel in Writ Petition No. 7829 of 2014, who has filed the instant writ petition. 11. In the instant case, the petitioner by not disclosing the fact of earlier pending writ petition,the petitioner is guilty of approaching this Court with unclean hands. In Ram Saran v. IG of Police, CRPF and others, (2006)2 SCC 541 , the Apex Court observed “A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the Court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor would the Court be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. ...............” 12. In Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and others, 2003 (Suppl.) 3 SCR 352, it was reiterated after referring to various earlier decisions of the Apex Court that fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material fact vitiates all solemn acts. In State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. T. Suryachandra Rao, AIR 2005 SC 3110 , the Apex Court after referring to various earlier decisions held that suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud upon the Court. The same view has been reiterated in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2005 SC 3330 . In R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and others, JT2004(1) SC 88, the Apex Court observed that a person, who seeks equity, must act in a fair and equitable manner. 13. The same view has been reiterated in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2005 SC 3330 . In R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and others, JT2004(1) SC 88, the Apex Court observed that a person, who seeks equity, must act in a fair and equitable manner. 13. In Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi v. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody, AIR 1964 SC 345 , 3 it was held that if there appears on the part of a person, who has approached the Court, any attempt to overreach or mislead the Court by false or untrue statements or by withholding true information which would have a bearing on the question of exercise of the discretion, the Court would be justified in refusing to exercise the discretion or if the discretion has been exercised in revoking the leave to appeal granted even at the time of hearing of the appeal. The same view was reiterated and followed in Vijay Syal and another v. State of Punjab and others, (2003) 9 SCC 401 . 14. The Supreme Court in various cases has held that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons, who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining the petitions as filing of applications containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose, amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. Here, it is relevant to mention that petitioner has moved an application on 20.8.2013 for renewal of the society, which was rejected by the competent authority after due consideration on the ground that the petitioner neither holds any post nor he is a member of general body. The said order was never challenged by the petitioner nor there is a whisper in this context, in the writ petition. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner and his Counsel, disclosed above, exhibits the mischievous tendency of the petitioner, who have indulged in frivolous and dishonest litigation. From the conduct, it appears that the petitioner is trying to circumvent process of Court by approaching the Court in the guise of different reasons and attempting to get relief any how. 15. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner and his Counsel, disclosed above, exhibits the mischievous tendency of the petitioner, who have indulged in frivolous and dishonest litigation. From the conduct, it appears that the petitioner is trying to circumvent process of Court by approaching the Court in the guise of different reasons and attempting to get relief any how. 15. A litigant who has approached this Court in extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction with unclean hands and suppresses the material facts with an oblique motive, his conduct makes him liable to pay an exemplary cost for abusing the process of the Court besides wasting precious time of the Court which could have been utilized for other more deserving cases. Thus the petitioner, Sri Ashok Kumar Bajpai son of Sri Onkar Nath Bajpai, resident of village & Post Muraithi, District Raebareli, must be saddled with the liability of heavy cost so as to deter that in future such thing may not recur. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with a cost quantified at Rupees One lac. The cost shall be deposited by the petitioner within two months with the Senior Registrar of this Court, who shall forward the same to the Oudh Bar Association for purchase of books, receipt whereof shall be furnished to the Senior Registrar by the Treasurer of the Bar Association. In case of failure by the petitioner to pay the amount of cost, it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue for which the Senior Registrar of this Court shall take appropriate steps. ———————