Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 478 (UTT)

State v. Chief Controller of Revenue

2017-09-04

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. 1. In both the writ petitions, since, the factual backdrop is common, this common judgment would be deciding the controversy and would be applicable in both the writ petitions. For the sake of convenience, facts of Writ Petition No. 400 of 2014 (M/S), are being taken into consideration. The petitioner State has filed the writ petition for the following reliefs :- “(i) Issue a rule order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 8-11-2000 passed by respondent no.1 in Stamp Revision Nos. 11 & 12 of 2000-2001, M/s Great Value Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State and others, (Annexure No.1 to the petition) by which the respondent no. 1 has allowed the revision petition of respondent No. 2 and set aside the judgment and order of Stamp Collector, Dehradun dated 02.03.2000. (ii) Issue any other /further rule order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The last order passed by the Revisional Court, which is put to challenge, is that of 8th November, 2000, passed by the Chief Controller of Revenue Authority / Board of Revenue, Allahabad. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred the Writ Petition on 27th May, 2004. 3. For explaining the laches, the explanation which has been given by the petitioner is assigned in para Nos. 31 to 35 of the writ petition, which are quoted hereunder :- “31. That somewhere in the first week of December, 2003 the Collector, Stamp, Dehradun while inspecting the record of pending cases noticed that the aforesaid revision petition was pending before Chief Controlling Authority/Board of Revenue, Allahabad and wanted to know about the progress of the same whether it has been transferred to the Chief Controlling Authority/Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttaranchal or not and directed Subordinate Staff to proceed Board of Revenue, Allahabad and enquire about the progress of the matter. 32. That Sub Registrar, Dehradun on this direction proceed to Allahabad and after contacting the office of Chief Controller / Revenue Authority, Allahabad he came to know that the revision petitioner has been decided on 8-11-2000 and he obtained a urgent certified copy thereof on 17.12.2003. 33. 32. That Sub Registrar, Dehradun on this direction proceed to Allahabad and after contacting the office of Chief Controller / Revenue Authority, Allahabad he came to know that the revision petitioner has been decided on 8-11-2000 and he obtained a urgent certified copy thereof on 17.12.2003. 33. That thereafter after receiving the certified copy of the order dated 8-11-2000 the Sub Registrar, Dehradun came back and submitted the same to the Collector, Stamp, Dehradun thereafter completing all the formalities for filing the instant petition directed Sub Registrar, Dehradun to proceed before this Hon’ble Court for filing the instant petition. 34. That thereafter the petition has been prepared and being filed before this Hon’ble Court. 35. That whatever delay has been occurred in filing the instant petition the same has occurred due to non information of the judgment and order dated 8-11-2000 (Annexure No.1 to the petition) till the 3rd Week of December, 2003 and the petitioner has not made any intentional delay in filing the instant petition as such in the circumstances aforesaid it is most respectfully submitted that the delay in filing this petition may kindly be condoned and the petition may kindly be treated as within time. ” 4. The contentions of the petitioner is that the Collector, Stamp could get knowledge about the proceedings of the Stamp Revision somewhere in December, 2003, while inspecting the record, and on an information to the said effect of pendency of Stamp Revision, which was pending before the Chief Controller of Revenue / Board of Revenue, Allahabad. The Collector, Stamp made an effort to know about the status of the revision and directed his subordinate Officers to inquire about the same from the Office of the Board of Revenue, Allahabad. 5. While giving this explanation, the petitioner has not given the details of the authority, who was entrusted with task to inspect the record with Board of Revenue at Allahabad? When did he visit the office of Board of Revenue? When did he file the application for inspection of the records? What was the information provided by the Board of Revenue on his efforts of inspection of Stamp Revision No. 11 of 2000-2001, M/s Great Value Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State and Others? 6. When did he visit the office of Board of Revenue? When did he file the application for inspection of the records? What was the information provided by the Board of Revenue on his efforts of inspection of Stamp Revision No. 11 of 2000-2001, M/s Great Value Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State and Others? 6. It was contended by the petitioner that when they received the information about the Revision having been decided on 8th November, 2000, they filed an application for getting the certified copy of the judgment dated 8th November, 2000 first time only on 17th December, 2003, and, thereafter, completing the requisite formalities, the writ petition was filed on 27th May, 2004. 7. At the initial stage, when the writ petition was filed, the notices were issued to the respondents. On receipt of the notice, the respondents have put in appearance on 21st June, 2004. The respondents filed an application, being Application No. 3709 of 2005, wherein, the respondents have prayed for that before adverting to the merits of the writ petition, the question of delay, as their chances a delay of more than three years to be decided, first. In his application, being Application No. 3709 of 2005, he contended in para No. 8, 9, 10 and 11 pleaded as under :- “8. That after the decision of Board of Revenue on 08.11.2000, all the original files of the case along with the certified copy of the judgment dated 08.11.2000 was sent by registered post by the Board of Revenue, Allahabad to the Collector, Dehradun on 24.11.2001 vide Board of Revenue letter No. 507/Stamp dated 24.11.2001. The answering Respondent had also made a query in the office of the Board or Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its reply dated 28.06.2004 has confirmed that the files were sent on 24.11.2001. An exact copy of the query and the reply of the Board of Revenue are being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE NO.CA-1 to this petition. 9. The answering Respondent had also made a query in the office of the Board or Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its reply dated 28.06.2004 has confirmed that the files were sent on 24.11.2001. An exact copy of the query and the reply of the Board of Revenue are being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE NO.CA-1 to this petition. 9. That an application for inspection was moved on behalf of the respondent No. 2 after the filing of the present writ petition and the inspection of the file revealed that the file revealed that files were put up by the dealing clerk before the ADM (F), Dehradun who had seen the files as well as the order and had also made an endorsement on the letter dated 24.11.2001 on 7th December 2001 itself. 10. That the District Magistrate has sought opinion from the DGC (Revenue) on the decision given by the Board of Revenue. That on 12.06.2003, the DGC (Revenue) Sh. Subodh Kumar Sharma had given his opinion to the District Magistrate, Dehradun and had also communicated to the Collector (Stamps) vide letter dated 07.03.2001. 11. That in order to cover up the gross negligence and to make a ground for condonation of delay and laches on the party of the petitioner, a certified copy was applied for on 17.12.2003 which was received on the same day.” 12. As per the arguments extended by Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, is to the effect that the assertions made in the writ petition, while explaining the laches that the State could get the knowledge of the proceedings only on 17th December, 2003, when they applied for the certified copy of the order dated 8th November, 2000, is belied and material relevant assertions about the knowledge of the case have been concealed to be brought from the knowledge of the Court, so as to take the benefit of the laches, which has chanced. 13. As a matter of fact, according to Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel, as soon as the Board of Revenue, Allahabad decided the matter on 8th November, 2000, the entire records were sent by the Board of Revenue, by a registered post to the Collector on 24th November, 2001, vide their letter No. 507/Stamp dated 24th November, 2001. 14. 13. As a matter of fact, according to Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel, as soon as the Board of Revenue, Allahabad decided the matter on 8th November, 2000, the entire records were sent by the Board of Revenue, by a registered post to the Collector on 24th November, 2001, vide their letter No. 507/Stamp dated 24th November, 2001. 14. The respondents office had also made a query from the Board of Revenue pertaining to the remittance of record of the Stamp Revision Nos. 11 and 12 of 2000-2001. The Board of Revenue, Allahabad, in response to query thereof, vide their reply given by Board of Revenue, Allahabad dated 28th June, 2004, had confirmed the transmission of the records of Revision and the judgment dated 8th November, 2000, vide their reply dated 28th June, 2004. 15. The Board of Revenue, in its reply, dated 28th June, 2004, has given the following information:- ^^cksMZ vkWQ jsoU;sw] bykgkckn lwpuk izkIr djus dk vkonsu i= ¼fu;e & 1290½ ¼,½ LVkEi fuxjkuh & 11 o 12 2000&2001 funsZ'k ftyk nsgjknwu eSllZ xszV oSY;w izkbosV fyfeVsM cuke LVsV vkWQ mRrj izns'k vU; izkFkhZ fuEufyf[kr iz'uksa ds laca/k esa lwpuk pkgrk gS%& fu.khZr fnukad & 8-11-2000 iz'u mRrj 1- D;k mijksDr LVkEi fuxjkuh ls lacaf/kr fuEu U;k;ky; dh i=kokfy;ka Hksth xbZ gSA 1- gkW 2- ;fn gkW rks fdlh i=kad }kjk fdl fnukad dks ,oa dgka okfil dh xbZ\ 2- fMLiSp la[;k 507@LVkEi fnukad 24-11-2001 }kjk vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼foŒ ,oa jkŒ½ nsgjknwu dks okil Hksth xbZ gSA ,lMh@& i{k ;k odhy dk gLrk{kj ,lMh@& v/kh{kd eqnkad foHkkx jktLo ifj"kn mŒizŒ bykgkckn mRrj nsus okys vf/kdkjh dk gLrk{kj fnukad 28-6-04 fVIi.kh 1 & ;g i= mRrj ds lkFk mlh fnu ykSVk fn;k tk;sxkA ;fn vfHkys[k ugha gS rks ;g ckr crk nsuh pkfg, vkSj izkFkhZ ls fufnZ"V fnukad dks fQj ls vkus ds fy, dg nsuk pkfg,A 2- ;fn ,d ls vf/kd iz'u iwNs tk;s rks izR;sd vfrfjDr iz'u ds fy, nks vkus dk vfrfjDr 'kqYd vo'; yxk gksuk pkfg,A** 16. Meaning thereby, in pursuance to the communications made by the Board of Revenue in response to query of State about the Revision, the State petitioner would be presumed to have acquired the knowledge of the order dated 8th November, 2000, but in the writ petition, while giving explanation to the laches, the communication of the Board of Revenue, Allahabad as made on 24th November, 2001, and the query made by the State of Uttarakhand pertaining to the remittance of the record to Uttarakhand, which was responded by Board of Revenue on 24.11.2001, was not pleaded nor placed on record by State petitioner, while explaining the laches. This shows that the source of knowledge attributed by the petitioner about the order dated 8th November, 2000, is false and it is by the communication of Board of Revenue dated 24.11.2001 and not the application for certified copy of the order filed by State on 17.12.2003, would attribute knowledge of order dated 08.11.2000 to State. 17. Its not only this, when the records from Board of Revenue, Allahabad stood remitted, as apparent from the reply of the Board of Revenue dated 28th June, 2004, which has confirmed the sending of the record on 24th November, 2001, and on inspection of the file by respondent, it has further revealed that record thus received from Board of Revenue, Allahabad, the same was placed before the A.D.M., Finance, Dehradun, who endorsed the file to have been “seen” and the records was also endorsed on December, 2001 by the office of Collector / ADM, (Finance), Dehradun. Meaning thereby, yet again, at least, the A.D.M., (Finance), Dehradun, acquired the knowledge of the case, at least on 7th December, 2001. But, yet again, the State has concealed or have not even brought this fact into the knowledge of the Court, while explaining the laches in the writ petition. 18. This has not stopped at this stage; rather, on the endorsement made by the A.D.M. (Finance), Dehradun, on 7th December, 2001, it seems the file kept on moving from one table to another before officers of the State Government and its authorities who were exchanging opinions from one table to another. 18. This has not stopped at this stage; rather, on the endorsement made by the A.D.M. (Finance), Dehradun, on 7th December, 2001, it seems the file kept on moving from one table to another before officers of the State Government and its authorities who were exchanging opinions from one table to another. Ultimately, when the file reached to Collector, the District Magistrate had sought an opinion from D.G.C., (Revenue), as to what action would be proceeded to subsequent to the endorsement made by the A.D.M. (Finance) on 24th November, 2001, and the receipt of the records by Board of Revenue, Allahabad vide their letter dated 24th November, 2001. 19. According to the pleadings raised by the respondents in their Misc. Application, he has pleaded denying the justification for condoning laches which remains as uncontroverted as on 12th June, 2003, the D.G.C., Revenue Subodh Kumar Sharma, has given an opinion to the District Magistrate and has also simultaneously communicated to the Collector for filing the writ petition. Meaning thereby, since 24th November, 2001 till 12th June, 2003, the State was aware of the order dated 8th November, 2000, but, yet, they have not brought all these facts on record, while seeking an explanation of delay of laches. 20. The respondents filed an Application No. 3709 of 2005 on 5th July, 2005, praying for the following reliefs:- “(i) The petition may be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts, misrepresentation, and giving false affidavit and for not coming before this Hon’ble Court with clean hands. (ii) Any other order of further order which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may be passed.” 21. As a matter of fact, by virtue of this Application, they sought to draw attention of the Court about the conduct of the State in misleading the Court by concealing the fact from being brought to knowledge of the Court with regard to the order dated 8th November, 2000, in its totality, and thus, Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel solicited an order on his application first before arguing the writ petition on its own merits. 22. On this application, which was submitted on 5th July, 2005, this Court on 7th July, 2005, granted time to petitioner to file their objection. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel solicited an order on his application first before arguing the writ petition on its own merits. 22. On this application, which was submitted on 5th July, 2005, this Court on 7th July, 2005, granted time to petitioner to file their objection. The said time for filing objection was again extended by the Court’s order dated 21st November, 2007 but objection was not filed by the State. This was yet again extended on 6th October, 2010, on 21st July, 2017 and on 17th August, 2017. But the petitioners have not filed their objection to the Misc. Application No. 3709 of 2005, and now almost 12 years have elapsed since the application is pending consideration, no objection has been filed by State petitioner, and it has been informed by Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned Deputy Advocate General that State Authorities, however, not responded to his communication for purposes of filing of objection. This has been quite a common feature with State Department by not being diligent in placing pleadings before Court. This is deprecating because it often results to delay in proceedings besides benefiting the adversary, who gain by delay like in instant case. 23. Admittedly, and even from the record, the order-sheet reveals that the application submitted by the respondents remained pending and number of opportunities were granted to the State as referred aforesaid, but the same was not replied. It is an established law that since the application submitted by the respondents was an objection on facts pertaining to the laches, which has chanced in filing the writ petition. Since, it was not denied the fact, it would be treated as to be true in all aspects. 24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and another Vs. Gurdial Singh and others reported in (1980) 2 SCC 471 , has held that the pleadings which are on record, if they are not denied despite of several opportunities and the allegations are not controverted, the averments made thereof would be treated to be as admitted. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 21 has held as under:- “21. On a conspectus of the material on the record it does seem that the impugned acquisition proceeding cannot be sustained. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 21 has held as under:- “21. On a conspectus of the material on the record it does seem that the impugned acquisition proceeding cannot be sustained. There is reason to believe that the statutory power to acquire land has been misused to satisfy the personal ends of the respondent No. 22, an individual who appears to be not without considerable political influence. Despite an opportunity afforded to controvert the allegations made by the respondents Nos. 1 to 21, no attempt has been made by him to contradict the allegations. A counter affidavit has been filed in this Court of behalf of the petitioners, the State of Punjab and the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer, but the material portion of the counter affidavit has been verified by its deponent "to the best of my knowledge and belief as derived from official record". The land belonging to the respondents Nos.1to 2l was selected by a body described as the Site Selection Board. There was also a New Mandi Control Board. The deponent of the counter affidavit was not a member of either Board. He was not a participant in the deliberations which are said to have led to the selection of the land belonging to the said respondents. Whether or not the deliberations were effected by the influence or pressure of the respondent No. 22 is a matter to which the officials or members selecting the land could alone be privy. In the absence of any denial of the allegations made by the respondents Nos. 1 to 21 in the writ petition by a person having personal and direct knowledge in the matter, and having regard to the entire history of the case, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the averments in the writ petition alleging mala fides must be accepted.” 25. There is another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1986 SC 872 . In this case, too, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when the parties to the proceedings alleges mala fides and files affidavits and those affidavits are not denied or refuted, such allegations remained unrebutted and Court would be constrained to accept the allegations, so remained unrebutted. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 115 has held as under:- “115. In this case, too, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when the parties to the proceedings alleges mala fides and files affidavits and those affidavits are not denied or refuted, such allegations remained unrebutted and Court would be constrained to accept the allegations, so remained unrebutted. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 115 has held as under:- “115. It is somewhat strange that although definite allegation of mala fide on the part of the respondents particularly the Government for the day at the center were made with sufficient particulars and though the respondents had ample time to file their affidavits in reply, none of the respondents except respondent No. 2, the Lt. Governor of Delhi and respondent No. 5, Land & Development Officer have chosen to deny the allegations. The counter-affidavit of respondent No. 2 purporting to be on behalf of all the respondents is that the allegations made by the petitioners in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 are not 'relevant' to the matter in issue. In C.S. Rowjee and Ors. v. A.F. State Road Transport Corporation [1964] 4 S.C.R. 330, the Court in a matter arising out of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 where certain allegations against the Minister went uncontroverted, had occasion to administer a word of caution. Where mala fide are alleged, it is necessary that the person against whom such allegations are made should come forward with an answer refuting or denying such allegations. For otherwise such allegations remain unrebutted and the Court would in such a case be constrained to accept the allegations so remaining unrebutted and unanswered on the test of probability. That precisely is the position in the present case, in the absence of any counter-affidavit by any of the respondents. One should have thought that the Minister for Works & Housing should have sworn an affidavit accepting or denying the allegations made by the petitioners. At our instance, M.K. Mukherjee, Secretary, Ministry of Works & Housing has filed a supplementary affidavit. He avers that the impugned notice dated March 10, 1980 of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease issued by the Engineer Officer, Land & Development Office was on the basis of press reports i.e. reports of the press conference held by the Lt. Governor. At our instance, M.K. Mukherjee, Secretary, Ministry of Works & Housing has filed a supplementary affidavit. He avers that the impugned notice dated March 10, 1980 of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease issued by the Engineer Officer, Land & Development Office was on the basis of press reports i.e. reports of the press conference held by the Lt. Governor. Again, there is no attempt on the part of the Union of India, Ministry of Works & Housing to deny the allegations of mala fides on the part of the Government and its functionaries in issuing the impugned orders. On the contrary, he avers that respondent No. 1 adopts the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 2. It is not for the parties to say what is relevant or not. The matter is one for the Court to decide. There is nothing before us from which we can say that the allegations in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the petition made by the petitioners are not well-founded. Mala fides on the part of the Government in power or its functionaries would be sufficient to invalidate the impugned notices. Fraud on power vitiates the impugned orders if they were not exercised bona tide for the purpose for which the power was conferred.” 26. The Hon’ble Apex Court yet again in another judgment in the case of G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. and another Vs. Government of Karnataka and another reported in AIR 1991 SC 1726 , has held in para 2 as under :- “2. Curiously enough, there is no reference in the Special Leave Petitions to any to the stay orders and we came to know about these orders only when the respondents appeared in response to the notice and filed their counter affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have a direct bearing on the question raised and the non-disclosure of the same certainly amounts to suppression of material facts. On this ground alone, the Special Leave Petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well-settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave Petitions.” 27. It is well-settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave Petitions.” 27. The State cannot be kept at different pedestal as compared to that of a common litigant, rather when they are facing the proceedings in a writ jurisdiction or before any Court of law, at least, it is expected from the State and its agencies to be fair to the Court while raising the pleadings. 28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and others reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 , has held in paragraph Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30 as under : 29. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 30. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 31. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 31. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 32 Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.” 33. In the instant case, apparently, it cannot be ruled out that filing of an application dated 17th December, 2003, was as an afterthought and in peshbandi just to build up a case for deriving knowledge for the purposes of the writ petition, seeking condonation of laches. 34. There is another aspect of the matter that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, though, is dealing with the question of extension of the prescribed period of limitation. In principal, it may not be applicable in a writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India. But, the Constitutional Courts, too, cannot be oblivion to the fact that, in any set of proceedings, where a party to the proceedings invokes a superior jurisdiction, has had to approach the Court within the admitted time period and with clear hands or at least within a reasonable period supported by a sufficient cause. Meaning thereby, for even explanation of laches, there has to be a condition precedent that the delay has chanced due to a reasonable cause. Meaning thereby, for even explanation of laches, there has to be a condition precedent that the delay has chanced due to a reasonable cause. Though sufficient cause may not be taken as a good cause but a pragmatic view has to be taken, while considering the reason assigned for condoning the delay. That is why, the reason for condoning the delay, a diligence and bona fide of the party, seeking a condonation of delay, has to be taken into consideration and that is why for getting a delay condoned, there has to be a rationale, based on record In simple interpretation, it means that person was resisted by reasonable cause from filing the proceedings for the reasons beyond the control which is not the case at hand, as the knowledge of the proceedings was attributed to State petitioner by the letter of the Board of Revenue, Allahabad, who has communicated about the proceedings way back in 2001 itself. 35. Apparently, the pleadings for explaining the laches in the writ petition as compared to the reply given in the application filed by the respondents, while opposing the laches shows that there as a clear concealment at the behest of the State by not bringing the true facts on record despite the fact that they had the knowledge of the proceedings and it is their office who has acted while collecting the record. 36. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The Ramjas Foundation and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1993 SC 853, too, was dealing with the situation where the petition was dismissed on the ground of laches. The Apex Court in the case of Ramjas (Supra), in para 7 has held that the relief under Article 136 which is pari materia to the provisions contained under Article 226, so far it relates to the High Court. Since, it is a discretionary remedy, the party who approaches for relief must come with clean hands without suppressing the material facts and there should be a frank disclosure and if he fails to do so, the application has to be dismissed. The Hon’ble Court while referring the word ‘party’ of the petition means either the litigant irrespective of whether it is State or private litigants. The Hon’ble Court while referring the word ‘party’ of the petition means either the litigant irrespective of whether it is State or private litigants. Hence, disclosure of all facts is necessary for invoking the jurisdiction of the constitutional courts and its concealment will result into the dismissal of the proceedings. Para 7 of the judgment is quoted hereunder:- “7. It is well settled that a person invoking an equitable extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to come with clean hands and should not conceal the material facts.” 37. Though, in this case, heavy stakes of the State is involved, as consequence of the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of laches. The State would be deprived of its revenue but simultaneously, on the same hand, the State cannot left scot free in the manner in which, they have taken up the proceedings before the Court of Law by concealing the facts. The laches may not be having much affect in the proceedings, it ought to have been decided on merits. But for the facts which is brought on record by the Misc. Application No. 3709 of 2005, which remained uncontroverted by the petitioner, this Court has got no other options except to allow the Application No. 3709 of 2005 and to dismiss the writ petitions on the ground of laches which has more particularly chanced because of concealment of the material facts. This Court was inclined to impose heavy cost on the State but has resisted to do so. 38. The writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.