ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein prayer has been made for quashing the Memo no.329 dated 05.07.2017 (Annexure-14) and further for direction to the respondents to release and return the Case Security/Bank Guarantee of Rs.2,00,000/ in favour of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as per the pleadings in the writ petition is that encroachment eviction from public premises was initiated by the office of Accountant General in between the period 16th July 2016 to 20th July 2017. It was found that the petitioner no.1 was an encroacher. On 20th July 2016 it was detected that he was occupying the government quarter (C type) from last 10 years and using the water and electricity facilities, therefore, he has been noticed and a proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 has been initiated due to unauthorized occupation. 3. At that juncture he filed an interlocutory application in a Public Interest Litigation before this Court being W.P.(PIL) No.3849 of 2016, Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court while hearing the aforesaid application has directed the Accountant General to release the vehicles bearing registration no.JH-01CA-2966 (Eco Sport car) and one Jeep bearing registration no.BPQ-6496, after furnishing cash security bank guarantee of Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of Principal Accountant General to be deposited before the Principal Accountant General (Audit) with a condition that they will not transfer the vehicles to any other third party during the pendency of the case and will not change the registration number, engine number and chessis number. Subsequently the aforesaid public interest litigation has been disposed of rendering it as infructuous. 4. The petitioner thereafter deposited Rs.2 lacs by way of bank guarantee and got the vehicles released in his favour. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that total liabilities of Rs.2,73,505/- on account of unauthorized occupant and apart from the penalty since the petitioner has deposited Rs.2 lacs, therefore, he has been directed to deposit further a sum of Rs.73,505/ out of Rs.2,73,505/-. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that total liabilities of Rs.2,73,505/- on account of unauthorized occupant and apart from the penalty since the petitioner has deposited Rs.2 lacs, therefore, he has been directed to deposit further a sum of Rs.73,505/ out of Rs.2,73,505/-. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 05.07.2017 (Annexure-14) is before this Court on the ground that proper opportunity of hearing has not been given to him by the estate officer and unilaterally the liability has been casted upon him, therefore, the order is not in consonance with the provision as contained in the Act 1971, in consequence thereof, the respondents were directed to realise a sum of Rs.2 lacs from the petitioner as has been deposited by him in pursuance to the direction passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid public interest litigation. 6. The matter was heard on 30.01.2019 and the learned counsel for the Accountant General, Mr. S. Srivastava had taken time to take instruction in the matter. 7. Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava has appeared along with the original record and produced the same before this Court. 8. It has been submitted by him that it is incorrect to say that proceeding under 1971 Act has not been initiated in a fullfledged way rather it is a fullfledged enquiry, in which the petitioner has deposited the amount as it would be evident from Annexure-11 dated 28.11.2016 annexed to the writ petition. He has further argued by referring to an application dated 28.12.2017 submitted by the petitioner before the State Officer stating therein that he is not in a position to deposit a sum of Rs.73,500/ as has been directed to be paid by the respondents vide interim order, so it may be waived as also the articles lying in the aforesaid house may be returned back, acting upon the said letter the respondents have waived the said amount which has been acknowledged by the respondents, he has also received the house hold articles by acknowledging the letter dated 07.01.2018, hence since he himself has made prayer before the authority by accepting the aforesaid order and acting upon his request the authorities have waived the said amount, now it is not open for the petitioners to come before this Court for assailing the said order. He has further submitted that the petitioner has also endorsed the letter that in future he will not claim any of the articles. 9. Mr. Srivastava further submits that these things ought to have been brought by the petitioners to the Court but these facts have been suppressed and, therefore, on this account the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the basis of the proposition of law that court of equity is to be approached with clean hand and not by suppressing any facts. 10. In response Mr. Saket Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Section 7 more particularly Sub-section 3 of the aforesaid Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions it is evident from the material on record that the petitioners have been alleged with an allegation of having unauthorized occupation of C type quarter belonging to the respondent-Accountant General for which the proceeding Act 1971 has been initiated. The authorities at the time of encroachment have seized the household articles along with two vehicles. A public interest litigation has been filed against the aforesaid encroachment being W.P.(PIL) No.3849 of 2016 wherein the petitioner has filed intervention application for release of vehicle which is directed to be released by this Court for furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. Two lacs subject to certain conditions that the vehicles will not be transferred and there cannot be any alteration in engine number etc. The aforesaid public interest litigation subsequently has been dismissed being infructuous. The petitioner has also appeared before the State Officer on 28.11.2016 vide Annexure-11 to the writ petition wherein he has been ordered to deposit Rs.2,73,505 by 15.11.2016. 12. When the direction as per the Annexure-11 dated 28.11.2016 has not been complied with further vide letter dated 05.07.2017 (Annexure-14) has been issued which is under challenge in this writ petition. 13. It is evident from the documents which has been brought before this Court by the respondents that the petitioner has made correspondence to the Principal Accountant General (Audit and Accounts) making therein request for waiving him to deposit Rs.73,505/ since he is not in a position to deposit the same due to his poor condition and the financial stringent. 13. It is evident from the documents which has been brought before this Court by the respondents that the petitioner has made correspondence to the Principal Accountant General (Audit and Accounts) making therein request for waiving him to deposit Rs.73,505/ since he is not in a position to deposit the same due to his poor condition and the financial stringent. The authorities have accepted the aforesaid submission and waived the said amount and released the house hold articles as would be evident from the acknowledgement dated 07.01.2018. Thus, it is evident that the petitioners have accepted the finding given by the State Officer. 14. So far as it relates to deposition a sum of Rs.2,73,505/-, two lacks has been treated to be the amount deposited against the aforesaid amount, which has been deposited by the petitioner at the time of release of the vehicle as per the order passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid public interest litigation and thereafter the rest of the amount Rs.73,505/ has also been waived which has also been accepted by the petitioner. In view thereof, the petitioners have accepted their liability but these facts has not been brought on record by the petitioners which is the material facts. 15. It is the settled position of law that the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a Court of equity and litigants are supposed to approach the Court with clean hand i.e without suppression of any fact and what is to be disclosed and not to be disclosed. It is beyond the domain of litigant rather it is the Court to look into the same, what is to be considered and what is not to be considered meaning thereby to approach the Court of equity the requirement is to approach with clean hands and without suppression of fact. 16. But this Court has gathered from the material available on the original record that the petitioners consciously have withheld document that i.e 28.12.2017 receiving of the household articles along with the condition of waivement of amount of Rs.73,500/ as would appear from the undertaking by the petitioners given on 07.01.2018. 17. 16. But this Court has gathered from the material available on the original record that the petitioners consciously have withheld document that i.e 28.12.2017 receiving of the household articles along with the condition of waivement of amount of Rs.73,500/ as would appear from the undertaking by the petitioners given on 07.01.2018. 17. This Court is also conscious with respect to alternative remedy available under the Act, but even though the order was not there for deposit of Rs.2,73,505/ on 28.11.2016, the same has not been assailed before the alternative appellate forum as provided under Section 9 of the Act 1971. 18. So far as argument advanced on behalf of Mr. Saket Upadhyay with respect to provision of Section 7 stipulates power to require payment of rent or damages in respect of public premises wherein Sub-section 3 stipulates that no order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be made against any person after the issue of a notice in writing to the person calling upon him to show cause. The question of the applicability of the provision of Section 7 of the Act does not arise here since notice was issued to the petitioner, in turn thereof he has appeared before the estate officer and more particularly he after getting the final order has made an application for waivement of the rest of the amount of Rs.73,505/. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case where the provision as contained in sub-section 3 of Section 7 has not been complied with. 19. In view thereof and in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 20. Mr. S. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-Accountant General is directed to furnish the photo copy of the letter dated 05.08.2016, 28.12.2017 and 07.01.2018 and the same may be kept on record. Petition dismissed.