ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S. K. Saharia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. I. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. B. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited, the respondent No.1 and Ms. M. D. Borah, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The respondent No.1 vide tender notice No.3/2014 invited tenders for operating amongst others Tamranga Fisheries in the district of Bongaigaon fixing the minimum expected yearly revenue of Rs.24,72,000.00 for a period of 7 years staring from the financial year 2014-15. Before fixing the annual yearly revenue the respondent No.1 considered the operative beel area of Tamranga Beel as 400 hectares out of its total area of 620 hectares. 3. The present petitioner participated in the said tender by quoting an annual revenue of Rs.77,77,777.00. Being the highest bidder, the petitioner was settled with the said Tamranga Fishery and subsequent thereto an agreement for settlement of the said fishery was executed for the financial year 2014-15 between the petitioner as the second party and the respondent No.1 as the first party. The relevant stipulations in the said agreement dated 13.08.2017 are reproduced herein below: (1) The second party will give the approval letter to run the Meen Mahal till 31.03.2015 against the revenue amount of Rs.77,77,777.00 for the year 2014-15. (2) The second party will submit 25 percent of the first year revenue as first installment and thereafter order for allotment will be issued after the execution of this agreement and it shall be treated as possession of the Meen Mahal by the Second Party. Every year the Second Party will pay the remaining revenue amount to the First Party in installment basis as described below. (a) 25 percent of the yearly revenue as first installment to be paid within March (from 2nd year onwards). (b) 25 percent of the yearly revenue as second installment to be paid within October. (c) 25 percent of the yearly revenue as third installment to be paid within November. (d) 25 percent of the yearly revenue as fourth installment to be paid within December. In the last second, third and fourth installment shall be given within the month of September, October and November respectively to the First Party. (c) 25 percent of the yearly revenue as third installment to be paid within November. (d) 25 percent of the yearly revenue as fourth installment to be paid within December. In the last second, third and fourth installment shall be given within the month of September, October and November respectively to the First Party. (3) If the Second Party fails to pay the installment amount within prescribed period, the allotment shall be cancelled by casting the liability and responsibility on the part of Second Party and the First Party may take alternative option by appointing other person for the management and the security deposit of the Second Party shall be forfeited. However, the First Party shall have the right to not cancelling the allotment and allow not more than one month time to the Second Party for the payment and can impose 10% simple interest on the outstanding amount. If the outstanding revenue amount has not been paid within the extended period of one month then it will be treated as cancellation of the allotment order. (4) If the Second Party fails to pay the installment revenue amount in time, the First Party can immediately cancel the agreement and can recover the revenue amount as arrear to Land Revenue. If the First Party thinks it proper, then it shall have the right to take necessary legal action to recover the outstanding revenue amount. (23) The Second Party shall not make the First Party liable for any loss suffered due to flood, drought, fish disease, forceful catching of fish by other, poisoning, theft, encroachment of meen mahal, not getting of possession or any other natural calamity and if the Second Party suffers loss due to such incident, he shall not get any subsidy in paying meen mahal revenue. (24) The Second Party shall stay alert during the allotment period regarding the encroachment of meen mahal and if any encroachment occurs, the Second Party shall be held liable and the First Party can cancel the allotment if it thinks proper and justified. (26) The Second Party shall not claim any subsidy in the meen mahal revenue showing cause relating to difficulty faced by the First party doing development work in the meen mahal. 4. (26) The Second Party shall not claim any subsidy in the meen mahal revenue showing cause relating to difficulty faced by the First party doing development work in the meen mahal. 4. After such agreement the petitioner on 09.10.2015, vide his representation sought for grant of remission of revenue to the extent of 40% every year during the period of lease in respect of Tamranga Group Fishery Mahal on the ground that the Tamranga Group of Fishery Mahal consists of water bodies of 60% and 40% respectively. The water bodies in the Konora beel forming the said Tamranga Group remains only during rainy reason and the area of the said fishery became agricultural field and remained under encroachment. On such representations on various occasions, the respondent No.1 wrote to the district administration to verify and clear up the encroachment if any. On verification by the district administration, encroachment was found but even then there was no move on the part of the respondent Corporation to allow remission as per the pleadings of the petitioner. 5. The respondent No.1, on verification found huge arrear in the payment of revenue installments and vide letter dated 15.12.2016 asked the petitioner within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said letter to renew the agreement and pay the arrear revenue of Rs.53,86,645.00. It was also intimated that failure to receive any response, the settlement would be cancelled. Thereafter also vide letter dated 07.02.2017, the respondent No.1 intimated about huge default on the part of the present petitioner. The petitioner vide his representation dated 10.02.2017 against the show-cause notice dated 07.02.2017 requested for remission of revenue for the same reason as aforesaid. Finally the petitioner defaulted in making payment of the kist money as a result of which an amount of Rs.1,23,21,676.00 became due and payable to the respondent Corporation. 6. The respondent Corporation issued a notice dated 22.12.2017 calling upon the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues within 31.12.2017 failing which the order of settlement was threatened to be cancelled. The petitioner prior to issuance of the said notice vide his representation dated 14.12.2017 requested the respondent Corporation for re-assessment of revenue on the ground of reduction of the operational area of the fishery. The petitioner prior to issuance of the said notice vide his representation dated 14.12.2017 requested the respondent Corporation for re-assessment of revenue on the ground of reduction of the operational area of the fishery. On 20.12.2017, vide his representation, the petitioner sought for extension of time till 03.01.2018 to pay the outstanding dues but the said representation dated 20.12.2017 was refused to be accepted by the respondent Corporation and the petitioner filed WP(C) No.4/2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 03.01.2018 with a direction to the respondent Corporation to pass a speaking order disposing of the petitioner’s representation dated 14.12.2017. 7. In terms of the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No.4/2018, the respondent No.1, Corporation issued order dated 25.01.2018 which is impugned in WP(C) No.504/2018 and by the said order, the settlement of the fishery was cancelled and possession was taken back by the respondent Corporation. 8. The respondent No.1 issued a fresh tender which was published in the newspaper on 06.02.2018 and instructed the Project Manager to settle the fishery in favour of one Nilopam Das on daily revenue basis fixing an amount of Rs.23,310.00 allowing the same valid till 31.03.2018 vide letter dated 03.02.2018. The said tender notice issued under Memo No.AFDC38/18/397-406 dated 02.02.2018 issued by the respondent No.1 calling for tender for the financial year 2018-19 in respect of Tamrang-Konora Group was put under challenge in WP(C)617/2018 along with the impugned letter dated 03.02.2018 issued by the respondent No.1 appointing respondent No.6, Sri Nilopam Das as the leader of the fishermen community who was allowed to fish on a daily basis. 9. This Court in both WP(C) No.504/2018 and WP(C) No.617/2018 vide order dated 07.02.2018 passed the following order as an interim measure: “Considering the fact that day to day settlement has been issued in favour of the private respondent without inviting any tender process and in view of the fact that the total revenue that would be generated from this temporary arrangement till 31.03.2018 would be Rs.12,14,612.00 only. Hence, keeping in view the interest of the Corporation and also balancing the equities, I propose to pass the following orders as an interim measure: (1) The impugned cancellation order dated 25.01.2018 shall remain stayed subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.30,00,000.00 (Rupees thirty lakh) with the AFDC within 13.02.2018. Hence, keeping in view the interest of the Corporation and also balancing the equities, I propose to pass the following orders as an interim measure: (1) The impugned cancellation order dated 25.01.2018 shall remain stayed subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.30,00,000.00 (Rupees thirty lakh) with the AFDC within 13.02.2018. (2) Subject to deposit of Rs.30,00,000.00 (Rupees thirty lakh), the writ petitioner would be permitted to operate the fishery until further orders. (3) The petitioner would also execute an undertaking before the authorities that he would be liable to pay the entire balance amount as per the schedule that would be notified to the petitioner within two weeks from today. (4) The payment that may be made shall be subject to further orders that may be passed in the writ petition. (5) If the petitioner succeeds in these writ petitions, remission if any, admissible under the law, shall be adjusted against the payment already made. List the cases again on 21.02.2018.” 10. On 21.02.2018 it was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.30 lakh by way of demand draft in compliance of the order dated 07.02.2018 and even on such deposit the petitioner was not allowed to resume fishing in terms of the order of this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation as observed by this Court did not deny the assertion of the counsel of the petitioner that the private respondent was carrying out the fishing activities and as such vide order dated 21.02.2018 this Court directed to stop the fishing activity in the Tamranga and Konora Beel Fishery by any third party and also directed the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon to ensure immediate compliance of the order. The said order was complied by the respondent Corporation and the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon also directed the concerned Sub- Divisional Officer (S.D.O.) to enforce the order passed by this Court. In the meantime, the respondent Corporation preferred WA 40/2018 challenging the interim order dated 07.02.2018 which was dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2018 by giving the option to the learned counsel for the present respondent Corporation to make a prayer before the Single Judge for early disposal of the writ petition. 11. The present respondent Corporation on 02.04.2018 filed the I.A.(Civil) No.1126/2018 to modify/alter/vacate the interim order dated 07.02.2018 passed by this Court in WP(C)504/2018. 11. The present respondent Corporation on 02.04.2018 filed the I.A.(Civil) No.1126/2018 to modify/alter/vacate the interim order dated 07.02.2018 passed by this Court in WP(C)504/2018. On 06.04.2018, the matter was listed and as the affidavit-in-opposition in the interlocutory application and also the affidavit-in-reply in the writ petition were not tagged with the case record the matter was adjourned till 20.04.2018. Vide order dated 20.04.2018, the matter was adjourned and the same was again listed on 28.05.2018 on which date both the counsel of the parties to the writ petition agreed the same to be listed on 12.06.2018 with an endeavour to dispose of the writ petition itself. On 12.06.2018, the matter was adjourned on the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner. On 16.07.2018 while the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for adjournment of the matter on his personal ground. It was brought to the notice of this Court by the respondent Corporation on that date that the petitioner defaulted for the financial year 2018-19 an amount of Rs.19,44,445.00 and the sum of Rs.50,609.00 as fine. The said amount was demanded to be paid within a period of 7 days with effect from 05.07.2018. The learned counsel for the petitioner admitting receipt of the said demand notice informed this Court that the petitioner would pay the said amount within two weeks starting from 16.07.2018. On 01.08.2018, the matter was again fixed for admission on 09.08.2018. On the said date while the matter was taken up it was informed to this Court that the petitioner failed to act as per the undertaking given by the learned counsel to deposit the amount of Rs.19,44,445.00 and the sum of Rs.50,609.00 as per the learned senior counsel of the respondent Corporation and the same amounts to willful violation of the order dated 16.07.2018,. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a fresh proposal was placed before the respondent Corporation on 07.08.2018 but owing to the absence of the Managing Director no action could be taken by the Corporation. A copy of the said proposal was also placed before this Court. From the said proposal it is seen that the petitioner admitted an amount of Rs.97,21,636.00 which is due to the Corporation leaving aside the amount of Rs.19,44,445.00. 12. A copy of the said proposal was also placed before this Court. From the said proposal it is seen that the petitioner admitted an amount of Rs.97,21,636.00 which is due to the Corporation leaving aside the amount of Rs.19,44,445.00. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation sought for drawal of contempt proceeding against the petitioner for willful violation of the order dated 16.07.2018. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on being asked by this Court submitted in the affirmative that an amount of Rs.20 lakh would be paid to the respondent Corporation on 10.08.2018. Keeping in view the said assurance, the matter was adjourned and fixed on 10.08.2018 for admission and for its disposal. 13. Today while the matter was taken up, Mr. Chouhdury, the learned senior counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that as per the information, the amount of Rs.20 lakh was not deposited to the Corporation. On the other hand, Mr. Saharia submits that he got a whatsapp message while the matter was called upon that a sum of Rs.20 lakh was transferred from Bongaigaon in favour of the respondent Corporation. 14. The aforesaid factual matrix along with the direction of the Division Bench of this Court referred hereinabove to seek for early disposal of these writ petitions, which the learned senior counsel accordingly sought for it I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate to take up both the writ petitions for disposal. As such both the two writ petitions along with the interlocutory application are taken up for disposal. 15. Mr. Saharia confines his submission as follows: (a) The fishery area as shown in the tender notice No.3/14 on the basis of which the minimum revenue of the fishery was fixed is not in existence inasmuch as the same has reduced owing to encroachment by the nearby villagers and due to siltation process after the flood. (b) The fact of such reduction of the area of the fishery is very much apparent from the subsequent tender notice published in “Dainik Asom” dated 6th February, 2018 wherein the minimum revenue was assessed by leaving aside 70% of the total Konora fishery. For the said reason the petitioner is claiming remission of the revenue by 70% since prior to the filing of the writ petition. For the said reason the petitioner is claiming remission of the revenue by 70% since prior to the filing of the writ petition. The respondent Corporation is very much aware of such reduction of the area but instead of granting remission of the revenue has taken a stand which is detrimental to the present petitioner coupled with arbitrariness. (c) Keeping in view the said fact of reduction in the area of the fishery, the petitioner submitted amended schedule of payment in terms of the meetings held in the Office of the respondent Corporation on 02.08.2018 and 06.08.2018 whereby the petitioner admitted liability to the extent of Rs.97,21,636.00. The petitioner offered to submit post dated cheques to clear up the said arrear of Rs.97,21,636.00 by way of nine installments of Rs.10,80,00.00 starting from October, 2018 till October, 2020. (d) The petitioner during the pendency of this writ petition paid an amount of Rs.30 lakh in compliance of the order passed by this Court and even after such compliance, the act of the respondent Corporation in issuing the tender notice dated 02.02.2018 thereby calling for tender for the financial year 2018-19 in respect of the fishery and the temporary settlement with the respondent No.6 in WP(C)617/2018 is an act to deprive the present petitioner from his right to carry on with the trade and right to live resulting violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. As such he sought for setting aside the impugned order No.AFDC- 523/2014/32 dated 25.01.2018 issued by the respondent No.1 cancelling the settlement of the Tamranga-Konora Fishery in North Salmara of Bongaigaon district and the subsequent tender notice dated 02.02.2018. 16. Mr. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel, on the other hand, vehemently objected to the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. His contention is that while fixing the expected minimum revenue return, the Corporation set aside a substantial area out of the operative area of the fishery. The minimum reserve revenue was fixed at Rs.24,72,000.00. The petitioner quoted Rs.77,77,777.00 of revenue annually and the total amount came to Rs.5,44,44,439.00 for a total span of 7 years with effect from the financial years 2014-15 to 2020-21. The petitioner must have definitely inspected the operational area of the fishery and definitely thereafter quoted the annual revenue for the settlement. The minimum reserve revenue was fixed at Rs.24,72,000.00. The petitioner quoted Rs.77,77,777.00 of revenue annually and the total amount came to Rs.5,44,44,439.00 for a total span of 7 years with effect from the financial years 2014-15 to 2020-21. The petitioner must have definitely inspected the operational area of the fishery and definitely thereafter quoted the annual revenue for the settlement. The respondent Corporation accepted the said bid of the petitioner keeping in view its revenue earnings which is prime consideration for issuing the notice inviting tender. Subsequent thereto, after acceptance of the bid of the present petitioner, being the highest one, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Corporation. Before executing the said agreement dated 13.08.2014, the petitioner was fully aware with the terms stipulated therein the said agreement. He was not forced to execute the said agreement. The action initiated by the present respondent Corporation is in total compliance of the said terms of the agreement and as such there is no unreasonableness or arbitrariness while cancelling the settlement order of the petitioner inasmuch as the respondent Corporation is also bound to follow the stipulations made in the lease agreement. Mr. Choudhury further submits that in the true sense, the petitioner has no right to get relief in a Writ Court inasmuch as there is a contract between the parties to this petition and both the parties agreed to certain stipulations wherein consequences in failure to abide by the terms so stipulated are also stipulated and agreed by the parties to the agreement. The petitioner is estopped in asking for the remission of revenue as per the terms of the said agreement. Submitting with respect to the conduct of the petitioner after making the promises before this Court, the same amounts to willful disobedience. This Court as an interim measure passed certain orders and after payment of Rs.30 lakh, the petitioner has come up with a fresh counter proposal in total violation of the interim order which was passed in presence of the counsel for the petitioner. The whole proceeding initiated by the present petitioner can be termed to be the abuse of the process of the Court and to that effect Mr. Choudhury relies (2008) 12 SCC 481, K. D. Sarma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others and (2013) 2 SCC 398 , Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others. 17. The whole proceeding initiated by the present petitioner can be termed to be the abuse of the process of the Court and to that effect Mr. Choudhury relies (2008) 12 SCC 481, K. D. Sarma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others and (2013) 2 SCC 398 , Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others. 17. Considered the submission of the learned counsel. There is no dispute at Bar that the petitioner was the settlement holder of Tamranga Group of Fisheries. He entered into the agreement thereby stipulating terms and conditions for the year 2014-15. Vide letter dated 09.10.2015, the petitioner sought for remission of the revenue for the period 2014-15 and subsequent thereto to the extent of 40 percent every year spanning from 2014-15 till completion of 7 yaers. The grounds mentioned are due to reduction of the water bodies covering the fisheries. The matter lingered and the outstanding rose to Rs.53,86,645.00. The Corporation vide its letter dated 15.12.2016 demanded for the said arrear revenue and executed the agreement for the year 2016-17 for the said fishery. Again it was intimated by the Corporation vide letter dated 07.02.2017 to clear the entire revenue dues for the financial year 2016-17 amounting Rs.60,39,923.00 within 7 days. In respect of the said letter dated 07.02.2017, the petitioner citing reference of his earlier letter vide his show-cause reply dated 10.02.2017 sought for remission of 40 percent of the revenue per year. 18. The petitioner sought for further time up to June, 2017 to clear up the arrear revenue on the ground that his business was hampered due to demonetization by the Government of India in the month of November, 2016. Again vide letter dated 14.12.2017, the petitioner informed that as on 31.11.2017 he deposited a sum of Rs.1,63,89,303.00 and as such there was no further arrear for the financial year 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, except an amount of Rs.33,502.00 to be paid for the financial year 2017-18. Referring the plea of reduction in the operational area of fishery, he again sought for re-fixation of the revenue after remission. It was also requested to the respondent Corporation to dispose of his representation as directed by this Court in WP(C)1467/2017 vide order dated 15.03.2017. On the basis of the said direction the respondent Corporation after considering the representation cancelled the settlement by the impugned order No.AFDC523/2014/302 dated 25.01.2018. 19. It was also requested to the respondent Corporation to dispose of his representation as directed by this Court in WP(C)1467/2017 vide order dated 15.03.2017. On the basis of the said direction the respondent Corporation after considering the representation cancelled the settlement by the impugned order No.AFDC523/2014/302 dated 25.01.2018. 19. The petitioner then filed WP(C) No.504/2018 and WP(C) No.617/2018 on the basis of which an interim order was passed on 07.02.2018 by this Court thereby directing the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.30 lakh and subsequent thereto as per the direction of the Court referred hereinabove he was supposed to execute an undertaking acknowledging his liabilities. The petitioner on his part though made a payment of Rs.30 lakh, however, disputed the subsequent demand of the present respondent Corporation vide letter dated 09.03.2018 thereby claiming an outstanding amount of Rs.1,25,462.00 and vide his letter dated 26.03.2018 disputed the said claim and sought for further breakup of the calculation of the said amount shown by the respondent Corporation. 20. While passing the impugned order the respondent Corporation considered Clause 4.3 of the tender wherein the petitioner admitted the location of the fishery and on his satisfaction the petitioner submitted his tender bid by quoting the figure of annual revenue. Clause 11.7.5 of the tender application is similar to Clause 23 of the agreement entered into by the petitioner and the respondent Corporation that if lessee suffered from flood, drought etc., the respondent Corporation is not liable and no revenue will be re-adjusted. Referring to the guidelines, the respondent Corporation observed that revenue cannot be adjusted for the fault of the lessee or any environmental changes. The respondent Corporation vide its letter dated 22.12.2017 requested the petitioner to deposit the unpaid revenue within 31.12.2017 informing further that on failure, the settlement will be cancelled and Bakijai proceeding would be initiated to recover the unpaid revenue, but the petitioner failed to deposit the unpaid revenue. Considering the same, the impugned order was passed thereby cancelling the settlement. 21. Considering the same, the impugned order was passed thereby cancelling the settlement. 21. In Jogendra Chandra Barman vs. State of Assam and Others, Writ Appeal No.37/2013 which was disposed of on 25.02.2013, the Division Bench of this Court held that “ under the tender conditions the appellant was not entitled to remission of revenue on the ground of some land merging with the river which was a natural process which did not, in any manner, affect the fishing rights of the appellant. The dues for fishing rights are consolidated amount on the whole area and inspite of part of the area merging in the river such rights are not affected.” 22. The present case of the petitioner is similar. The area as per the petitioner of the total fishery was reduced within the range of 60 percent to 40 percent due to silting process and for encroachment by villagers. The terms of the agreement stipulates strictly that the Corporation is not responsible for not getting possession or any other natural calamities. It is also stipulated that on the failure of the petitioner to pay the installment revenue amount in time, the respondent Corporation has right to cancel the agreement and recover the revenue amount as arrear of land revenue. Clause 20 of the guidelines of the Board of Directors of the Corporation is also clear and specific to that effect. Moreover, the said guideline is fortified with the Division Bench decision of this Court. The stipulation of the terms in the agreement was admittedly accepted by the petitioner and he has a responsibility to stand by the promises made in the said agreement. There may be reasons which are unforseen in nature and for that purpose, a discretion is given under the guideline 19 of the Board of Directors to consider the genuineness of the claim made by the petitioner for remission of the revenue. This is a case wherein ample scope was given to the petitioner by the respondent Corporation to pay the revenue but the petitioner has failed on various occasions. The Corporation cannot permit such remission in a routine manner. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned cancellation notice was issued without hearing him. He was heard as apparent from the order itself. The Corporation cannot permit such remission in a routine manner. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned cancellation notice was issued without hearing him. He was heard as apparent from the order itself. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in passing the impugned order inasmuch as it is a case of non-compliance of the terms of an agreement entered into by the petitioner and the respondent Corporation wherein the scope of this Court is very limited and the burden lies upon the petitioner to show that the order was totally unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly I do not find merit in WP(C) No.504/2018 and the same stands dismissed. 23. Consequent to dismissal of the WP(C) No.504/2018 of this writ petition, there is no point in further interference with the tender issued under Memo No.AFDC3-52/2018/397/106 dated 02.02.2018 by the respondent No.1 calling for tender for the financial year 2018-19 in respect of Tamranga-Konora Group of Fisheries. The WP(C) No.617/2018 is also dismissed. 24. The other limb of the argument of the senior learned counsel for the respondent Corporation of willful default on the part of the petitioner is to be considered in the light of the acts and deeds of the present petitioner after passing of the interim order dated 07.02.2018. The cancellation order of the settlement dated 25.01.2018 was allowed to be stayed by this Court subject to the condition that the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.30 lakh to the respondent Corporation within 13.02.2018 and subject to the deposit of Rs.30 lakh, the petitioner was directed to be permitted to operate the fishery until further order by this Court. The petitioner was supposed to execute the undertaking before the authority accepting that he would be liable to pay the interim balance amount as per schedule that would be notified to the petitioner within two weeks from 07.02.2018. The payment to be made by the petitioner subsequently shall be subject to further order that may be passed by this Court and the remission if any, admissible under the law shall be adjusted considering all the payments already made. 25. In compliance of the said order of this Court the respondent Corporation vide letter dated 09.03.2018 requested the petitioner to pay three installments of Rs.41,68,208.00 starting from 22.03.2018, 02.04.2018 and 12.04.2018. 25. In compliance of the said order of this Court the respondent Corporation vide letter dated 09.03.2018 requested the petitioner to pay three installments of Rs.41,68,208.00 starting from 22.03.2018, 02.04.2018 and 12.04.2018. The said payment schedule was disputed by the petitioner vide his letter dated 26.03.2018 which is in clear violation on the face of the order passed by this Court wherein an observation was made by this Court in the order dated 07.02.2018 that if the petitioner paid all the payments, remission if any, admissible under the law, shall be adjusted against the payment already made. Vide order dated 16.07.2018, the learned counsel for the petitioner gave an undertaking to this Court that the petitioner would pay the amount of Rs.19,44,445.00 and a sum of Rs.50,609.00 within two weeks from 16.07.2018. The petitioner defaulted for which he was again directed to pay the said amount as per the undertaking vide order dated 09.08.2018 to be paid on 10.08.2018 forenoon. The status with regard to the said payment stand disputed by the respondent Corporation. 26. From the aforesaid acts it is clear and apparent that the petitioner is not a bonafide litigant inasmuch as in order to give some respite from the financial difficulty, this Court passed the interim order dated 07.02.218. If there was any dispute with respect to the interim arrangement of schedule of payment so fixed by the respondent Corporation, the petitioner ought to have come before this Court for consideration of any such dispute. The petitioner failed to come, rather on his own, disputed the said amount. The proposal put on record by the petitioner before the respondent Corporation on 07.08.2018 itself shows that the petitioner admits a total liability of Rs.97 lakh and odd. Under such circumstances also the petitioner ought to have complied to the direction of this Court, at least by paying two installments out of the three so fixed by the respondent Corporation. The sum total of the said two installments as fixed by the respondent Corporation does not exceed the admitted amount of Rs.97 lakh and odd by the petitioner. 27. The sum total of the said two installments as fixed by the respondent Corporation does not exceed the admitted amount of Rs.97 lakh and odd by the petitioner. 27. If the whole factual matrix subsequent to the order dated 07.02.2018 is considered it can be inferred that the petitioner preferred the present writ petition just in order to halt the process of realization of the revenue earnings of the respondent Corporation without any sincere effort to abide by the terms so set out by this Court. In my opinion, such type of litigants enter the court with the intent and effort to abuse the process of Court. It is a duty whoever comes to a Court of Equity must come with clean hands. Missing of such ingredients on the part of the litigants amounts to infusion of the element of abuse of process of Court in the proceeding so drawn up on the basis of the petition of such litigants. In (2013) 2 SCC 398 , Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, the Hon’ble Apex Court held what are abuse of process of Court which is reproduced herein below: “32. The cases of abuse of the process of court and such allied matters have been arising before the courts consistently. This Court has had many occasions where it dealt with the cases of this kind and it has clearly stated the principles that would govern the obligations of a litigant while approaching the court for redressal of any grievance and the consequences of abuse of the process of court. We may recapitulate and state some of the principles. It is difficult to state such principles exhaustively and with such accuracy that would uniformly apply to a variety of cases. These are: 32.1. Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with ‘unclean hands’. Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor entitled to any relief. 32.2. These are: 32.1. Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with ‘unclean hands’. Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor entitled to any relief. 32.2. The people, who approach the court for relief on an ex parte statement, are under a contract with the court that they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant. 32.3. The obligation to approach the court with clean hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by this Court. 32.4. Quests for personal gains have become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood and misrepresent and suppress facts in the court proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent have overshadowed the old ethos of litigative values for small gains. 32.5. A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. 32.6. The court must ensure that its process is not abused and in order to prevent abuse of the process the court, it would be justified even in insisting on furnishing of security and in cases of serious abuse, the Court would be duty bound to impose heavy costs. 32.7. Wherever a public interest is invoked, the court must examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine public interest involved. The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants. 32.8. The court, especially the Supreme Court, has to maintain strictest vigilance over the abuse of the process of court and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted “visa”. Many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed grievances and the Court should endure to take cases where the justice of the lis well-justifies it. (Refer : Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., Amar Singh v. Union of India and State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402 ).” 28. Many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed grievances and the Court should endure to take cases where the justice of the lis well-justifies it. (Refer : Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., Amar Singh v. Union of India and State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402 ).” 28. Keeping in view the aforesaid ratio, the classification of the present petitioner, in my opinion can be compared with para 32.2 of the aforesaid decision. The petitioner approached the Court for relief on an ex-parte statement and bound to disclose his whole case fully including his financial hardship thoroughly to the Court. But the subsequent conduct after order dated 07.02.2018 was passed by this Court, the bonafide and genuineness of the petitioner can be clearly doubted for the reasons hereinabove mentioned. In (2008) 12 SCC 481, K. D. Sarma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others while highlighting the nature of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and the nature of the litigant to raise his grievances under Article 226, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play “hide and seek” or to “pick and choose” the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because, "the court knows law but not facts".” 29. Without referring to the acts of the present petitioner after obtaining the order dated 07.02.2018 further in my opinion, the petitioner is playing hide and seek inasmuch as the petitioner has no bonafide in accepting and performing the direction of this Court. This is because, "the court knows law but not facts".” 29. Without referring to the acts of the present petitioner after obtaining the order dated 07.02.2018 further in my opinion, the petitioner is playing hide and seek inasmuch as the petitioner has no bonafide in accepting and performing the direction of this Court. Under such circumstances I am constrained to impose a cost of Rs.10,000.00 (Rupees ten thousand) only on the petitioner which is to be deposited to the Registry of this Court within a period of one months from the date of order and the same shall be forwarded to the Legal Services Authority of this Court. 30. The Registry to follow-up the compliance by the present petitioner.