JUDGMENT Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—Pursuant to order of this Court dated 9.3.2018 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Meerut is present in the Court. Learned Standing Counsel has received instructions. On the strength of instructions she submits that by an order dated 29.1.2018 a Division Bench of this Court in a writ petition i.e. Writ-C No. 3701 of 2018 has stayed the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut dated 5.12.2017 wherein a direction was issued to ensure that the physical possession of the land in question be handed over to the petitioners by use of police force. 2. Be that as it may, the relief sought in the instant writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the possession of the petitioners’ land in dispute as directed by order dated 5.12.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut (which has been stayed by the Division Bench on 29.1.2018) and the order passed by this Court in a writ petition i.e. (Writ-B No. 58750 of 2015), dated 2.12.2016 which is stated to be confirmed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2979 of 2017 by order dated 17.2.2017. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the conduct of the petitioner dis-entitles him to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as she has not come with clean hands. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner in respect of same property had instituted a suit for ejectment wherein an interim injunction was granted. Later, he has withdrawn the suit, but this fact has not been disclosed before this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing, Sri Anurag Sharma and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record and pleadings carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioners files second supplementary-affidavit. It is taken on record. 6. The petitioners had instituted the suit for ejectment being Suit No. 2077 of 2017 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer in respect of the same property. However, the petitioners have not disclosed any fact with regard to institution of the suit. A copy of plaint of the suit is on the record as annexure-1 to the impleadment application filed today. 7. However, the petitioners have not disclosed any fact with regard to institution of the suit. A copy of plaint of the suit is on the record as annexure-1 to the impleadment application filed today. 7. Learned Standing Counsel submits that some civil suits are also pending in the Civil Court. She produced the record which indicates that in respect of the same property some civil suits are pending before the Civil Court, Meerut which are, Suit No. 167 of 2017 (Kishan Gopal v. Guddi); Suit No. 639 of 2017 (Smt. Rakhi v. Guddi); Suit No. 839 of 2016 (Smt. Rajesh Kumari v. Raj Kumar); Suit No. 554 of 2017 (Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal v. Guddi) and Suit No. 550 of 2017 (Smt. Poonam v. Smt. Guddi). In respect of the same property Suit No. 2077 of 2017 (Smt. Guddi v. Kishan Gopal) under Section 134 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is also pending before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Meerut. 8. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the objections filed by the petitioners are still pending. 9. It is a well-settled law that a writ of mandamus can be granted only if the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance and there is statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned to discharge the statutory obligation. In case of failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory duty only then a writ of mandamus can be issued. If there is no legal right with the party asking for writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty the writ cannot be issued. In the case of Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. Governing Body of the Nalanda College, Bihar Sharif and others, AIR 1962 SC 1210 , the Court observed as under: “5. ...In order that mandamus may issue to compel the respondents to do something it must be shown that the Statutes impose a legal duty and the appellant has a legal right under the Statutes to enforce its performance.” 10. The said judgment has been consistently followed by the Supreme Court. Reference may be made to the judgments in The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh and others, (1977) 4 SCC 145 ; Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M. Shah, Deputy Custodian cum Managing Officer, Bombay and others, AIR 1966 SC 334 ; and, Dr. The said judgment has been consistently followed by the Supreme Court. Reference may be made to the judgments in The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh and others, (1977) 4 SCC 145 ; Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M. Shah, Deputy Custodian cum Managing Officer, Bombay and others, AIR 1966 SC 334 ; and, Dr. Uma Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar and others, (1973) 1 SCC 485 . 11. In the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain and another, (2008) 2 SCC 280 , the Supreme Court has quoted The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris in the following terms: “11. The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr.: “Note 187.— Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest Court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior Court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper Court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duly to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed. * * * Note 192.—Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty. * * * Note 196.— Mandamus is not a writ of right. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty. * * * Note 196.— Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the Court, subject always to the well-settled principles which have been established by the Courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the Court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned - an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The Court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances. * * * Note 206.— ...The correct rule is that mandamus will not lie where the duty is clearly discretionary and the party upon whom the duty rests has exercised his discretion reasonably and within his jurisdiction, that is, upon facts sufficient to support his action.” 12. In the case of Union of India and another v. S.B. Vohra and others, (2004) 2 SCC 150 , the Supreme Court has quoted the Administrative Law, 8th Edition by Professor Wade. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: “27. Prof. Wade, also, in his well-known treatise Administrative Law, 8th Edition, at p. 609 makes a distinction between a discretionary power and obligatory duties in the following terms: “Obligatory duties must be distinguished from discretionary powers. With the latter mandamus has nothing to do: it will not, for example, issue to compel a minister to promote legislation. Statutory duties are by no means always imposed by mandatory language with words such as ‘shall’ or ‘must’. Sometimes they will be the implied counterparts of rights, as where a person ‘may appeal’ to a tribunal and the tribunal has a correlative duty to hear and determine the appeal. Sometimes also language which is apparently merely permissive is construed as imposing a duty, as where ‘may’ is interpreted to mean ‘shall’. Sometimes they will be the implied counterparts of rights, as where a person ‘may appeal’ to a tribunal and the tribunal has a correlative duty to hear and determine the appeal. Sometimes also language which is apparently merely permissive is construed as imposing a duty, as where ‘may’ is interpreted to mean ‘shall’. Even though no compulsory words are used, the scheme of the Act may imply a duty. Having developed from a piece of purely administrative machinery, mandamus was never subject to the misguided notion which at one time afflicted its less fortunate relative certiorari, that it could apply only to ‘judicial’ functions. Administrative or ministerial duties of every description could be enforced by mandamus. It was, indeed, sometimes said that this remedy did not apply to judicial functions, meaning that where a public authority was given power to determine some matters, mandamus would not lie to compel it to reach some particular decision. The law as to this is explained below under ‘Duty to exercise jurisdiction’. The fact that the statutory duty is directory as opposed to mandatory, so that default will not invalidate some other action or decision, is no reason for not enforcing it by mandamus.” 13. In addition to above, the petitioner has concealed the fact regarding several pending cases which has not been disclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition. Thus, the petitioner has suppressed a material fact. A Full Bench of this Court in Asiatic Engineering Co. v. Achhru Ram and others, AIR 1951 Allahabad 746 (FB), has held thus : “51. In our opinion, the salutary principle laid down in the cases quoted above should appropriately be applied by Courts in our country when parties seek the aid of the extraordinary powers granted to the Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. A person obtaining an ex parte order or a rule nisi by means of a petition for exercise of the extraordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution must come with clean hands, must not suppress any relevant facts from the Court, must refrain from making misleading statements and from giving incorrect information to the Court. Courts, for their own protection, should insist that persons invoking these extraordinary powers should not attempt, in any manner, to misuse this valuable right by obtaining ex parte orders by suppression, misrepresentation or misstatement of facts.” 14. Courts, for their own protection, should insist that persons invoking these extraordinary powers should not attempt, in any manner, to misuse this valuable right by obtaining ex parte orders by suppression, misrepresentation or misstatement of facts.” 14. The Supreme Court in the case of Amar Singh v. Union of India and others, (2011) 7 SCC 69 , has strongly deprecated the practice to file writ petition by suppression of fact and held that a litigant who comes to Court and invokes its writ jurisdiction must come with clean hands and the litigants who have come with “unclean hands” are not entitled to be heard on the merits of their case. 15. Admittedly, the matter in dispute relates to agricultural plot and the parties have taken recourse to their remedy up to the Supreme Court hence there is no need to issue writ of mandamus as sought by the petitioners. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate is present in the Court in compliance of earlier order of this Court. 16. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of concealment of fact and on the ground that no writ of mandamus in facts and circumstances of this case can be issued, leaving it open to the petitioners to take recourse to the remedy which is available to them under the law. It is made clear that any observation made in this order or dismissal of this writ petition shall not cause any prejudice to the interest of the petitioners. No order as to costs.