JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajeet Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri I.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief; "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.06.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) as well as order dated 27.06.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure 18 to the writ petition). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner fishing work of the petitioner in Rihand Reservoir in any manner during the period. As per agreement dated 02.01.2019 (Annexure-4A to the writ petition). (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioners pursuant to impugned orders (Annexure-17 and 18 to the writ petition)." Facts: 3. By the impugned order dated 26.06.2020 passed by the Director, Fisheries, U.P. Lucknow, the contract of the petitioner for fishing has been cancelled for default in payment of fifth, sixth and seventh installments of the contract amount of the second year and certain arrears of interest, totalling Rs. 1,20,31,144/. The Director has also granted liberty to the competent authority to initiate proceedings for recovery of arrears and black listing. The second impugned order is dated 27.06.2020 which has been passed by the Assistant Director (Fisheries), Rihand, District Sonbhadra (U.P.) intimating the cancellation of the contract. The proceeding for black listing has not yet been initiated. 4. The contract of the petitioner for fishing was accepted by the competent authority by order dated 11.12.2018 for the period from 22.11.2018 to 30.06.2028 for total consideration of Rs. 40,72,89,736/-. 5. The aforesaid order was followed by acceptance letter dated 18.12.2018 issued by the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Vindhyanchal Division, Mirzapur, annexing therewith schedule of payment of yearly consideration amount in seven equal monthly instalments each year payable by 15th September, 15th October, 15th November, 15th December, 15th January, 15th February and 31st March. 40,72,89,736/-. 5. The aforesaid order was followed by acceptance letter dated 18.12.2018 issued by the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Vindhyanchal Division, Mirzapur, annexing therewith schedule of payment of yearly consideration amount in seven equal monthly instalments each year payable by 15th September, 15th October, 15th November, 15th December, 15th January, 15th February and 31st March. Thereafter, the petitioner executed an agreement dated 02.01.2019 with the Fisheries Department of Uttar Pradesh for five years for the period from the year 2018-19 to 30.06.2023 for total contract amount/consideration of Rs. 15,60,19,220.00. As per the aforesaid agreement, in the fifth and seventh year, after review, agreement for remaining period of contract shall be executed. 6. The petitioner has filed with the writ petition as Annexure 4 only three pages of the aforesaid Agreement dated 02.01.2019 and suppressed the remaining portion containing conditions of agreement which has been executed by the petitioner on Non Judicial Stamp Papers of total Rs. 25,800/containing thirteen pages and the attached schedule of payments in two pages. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has produced instructions of the Director Fisheries dated 10.07.2020 alongwith a copy of the aforesaid Agreement of the petitioner dated 02.01.2019 which is kept on record. 8. Conditions of contract provides schedule of payment. It provides that 25% of the contract amount of the first year shall be paid on acceptance of the tender and remaining 75% shall be deposited in monthly installments up to 31st March. For the second year and other subsequent years 25% of the yearly contract amount shall be deposited up to 16.08.2020 and the remaining 75% shall be deposited in seven equal monthly installments. Thus in the second year after deposit of 25% amount the petitioner was liable to deposit the balance 75% amount in seven monthly installments by 15th September, 15th October, 15th November, 15th December 2019 and 15th January, 15th February and 31st March 2020. The petitioner defaulted in payment of third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh installments of the second year. After notice he belatedly deposited third installment on 29.04.2020, part of fourth installment on 23.05.2020 and the remaining amount of the fourth installment on 11.06.2020. The fifth, sixth and seventh installments which fell due in the month January, February and March were not deposited by the petitioner. He has also not deposited interest on the belated deposit of installment in the first year and second year. The fifth, sixth and seventh installments which fell due in the month January, February and March were not deposited by the petitioner. He has also not deposited interest on the belated deposit of installment in the first year and second year. All these resulted in huge arrears of contractual amount which the petitioner failed to deposit under the contract. The installments were due and payable by the petitioner even prior to the start of lock down period on account of COVID-19 pandemic. 9. Respondents issued notices to the petitioner from time to time to deposit the amount but the petitioner failed to comply with the notices. Copy of notices dated 24.04.2020, 01.05.2020, 02.05.2020 and 05.06.2020 have been filed by the petitioner collectively as Annexure 11 to the writ petition. Copy of notice dated 18.06.2020 has not been filed by the petitioner which has been produced by the learned Standing Counsel alongwith the aforesaid instructions. Since the petitioner failed to deposit the contractual amount and did not deposit it even after notices, therefore, the respondents have cancelled the contract by the impugned orders and ordered for recovery of arrears. 10. Copy of notice dated 18.06.2020 has not been filed by the petitioner which has been produced by the learned Standing Counsel alongwith the aforesaid instructions. Since the petitioner failed to deposit the contractual amount and did not deposit it even after notices, therefore, the respondents have cancelled the contract by the impugned orders and ordered for recovery of arrears. 10. The relevant conditions of the Agreement dated 02.01.2019 are reproduced below: Relevant Conditions of contract: ^^3- mPpre bZ&fufonknkrk dks fufonk izfØ;k lekIr gksus ij bZ&fufonk ls lEcfa/kr vU; 'krksZ ds vfrfjDr okf"kZd vk/kkj ij tks lcls ewY; izkIr gksxk] mldh 25 izfr'kr /kujkf'k&fufonk Lohdkj djus ds mijkar Bsdsnkj@lfefr dks rRdky vxys dk;Z fnol rd tek djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA 'ks"k 75 izfr'kr /kujkf'k vuqca/k ds i'pkr 31 ekpZ rd leku ekfld ls lyXu lkfj.kh ds vuqlkj tek dh tk;sxhA Bsdks ds vkxkeh o"kksZ dh 25 izfr'kr /kujkf'k Bsdsnkj@lfefr dks 16 vxLr rd tek djuk vfuok;Z gS] ftlds fy;s le;o`f) ugha nh tk;sxh rFkk 'ks"k 75 izfr'kr /kujkf'k 31 ekpZ rd leku ekfld fd'rks esa layXu le; lkj.kh ds vuqlkj tek djuk gksxhA Js.kh&1 ds tyk'k;ks esa Bsdsnkj@lfefr }kjk 75 izfr'kr /kujkf'k dks lqfuf'pr :i ls tek djkus gsrq lerqY; /kujkf'k dk cSad xkj.Vh i= vFkok ,QŒMhŒ ds :i esa lEcfU/kr mi funs'kd eRl; ds ikl ca/kd ds :i esa 30 fnu ds vanj tek djk;k tk;sxk tks Bsdk lekfIr dh frfFk rd ca/kd jgsxhA vo'ks"k vof/k ds Bsdks esa Bsdnkj@lfefr dks vf/kdre N% ekg dh vo'ks"k vof/k gsrq 100 izfr'kr /kujkf'k bZ&fufonk izfØ;k lekIr gksus ds rRdky vFkok vxys dk;Z fnol rd cSad MªkV@vkjŒVhŒthŒ,lŒ }kjk tek djuh gksxhA ftu izdj.kks esa 6 ekg ls vf/kd cdk;k vof/k 'ks"k jgsxh mues Bsdk vof/k 7 ls 8 ekg dh vo'ks"k vof/k ds fo:) 50 izfr'kr dh /kujkf'k fufonk ds rqjar ckn rFkk 40 izfr'kr /kujkf'k Bsdk Lohd`r gksus ds ,d ekg esa tek djuh gksxh ,oa fd'r dh /kujkf'k tek djus gsrq le;o`f) iznku ugha dh tk;sxhA mDr nksuks fLFkfr esa le; ls fd'r dh /kujkf'k tek u gksus ij funs'kd eRl; dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd Bsdk fujLr dj nsA 4- Bsdk Lohd`r djus ds mijkar vuqca/k iw.kZ gksus ij ,d ekg rd ;fn Bsdsnkj@lfefr }kjk ekfld fd'rksa dh /kujkf'k tek ugha dh tkrh gS rks Bsdsnkj@lfefr dks fd'r ns; dh fu/kkZfjr frfFk ds i'pkr nks izfr'kr izfrekg C;kt n.M Lo:i vkxkeh ns; fd'r ds lkFk&lkFk Hkqxrku djuk gksxkA 40- fjgUn tyk'k; Js.kh&1 ds Bsds ds vuqca/k i= dh 'kRkZ la[;k&1 ls 39 rd dk mYy?ku ;fn Bsdsnkj@Bsdsnkj }kjk ukfer izfrfuf/k@Bsdsnkj }kjk j[ks x;s deZpkjh }kjk fd;k tkrk gS rks fjgUn tyk'k; Js.kh&1 ds lkis{k tek tekur dh /kujkf'k tCr djrs gq, Bsdk fujLr dj fn;k tk;sxk ,oa dkyh lwph esa lwphc} fd;k tk;sxk] ftldh lEiw.kZ ftEesnkjh Bsdsnkj dh gksxh^^ Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner: 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as under: (i) Impugned orders have been passed in breach of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no notice was issued to the petitioner. (ii) Payment of instalments could not be made due to lockdown on account of Covid19 Pandemic which started from 24.03.2020. (iii) Petitioner is ready to deposit the entire due amount in instalments. (iv) Condition No. 18 of the Agreement, contains arbitration clause as contended by the Additional Advocate General, is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, since there is no dispute with regard to the contract. The grievance of the petitioner is that the due amount could not be deposited in time due to lockdown on account of Pandemic Covid19 and the petitioner is now ready to deposit. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents 12. Learned Additional Advocate General submits as under: (i) The petitioner has deliberately filed incomplete copy of the Agreement dated 02.01.2019 so as to suppress the relevant conditions of contract. Petitioner has also suppressed notices issued to him. (ii) Submission of the petitioner that due to lockdown instalment could not be deposited, is misleading since the petitioner has regularly defaulted in payment of instalments which were due much prior to the start of lock down. (iii) Petitioner has breached conditions of the Agreement. Hence in view of condition No. 40, the contract has been cancelled and impugned orders have been passed in accordance with law. (iv) Court can interpret conditions of contract but cannot rewrite contract. Discussion and Findings 13. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties. 14. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he did not deposit the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh instalments which were due and payable by the petitioner on or before 15th November 2019, 15th December 2019, 15th January 2020, 15th February 2020 and 15th March 2020 respectively. Besides, the petitioner has also not deposited interest and certain other charges in terms of the Agreement. Consequently, notices dated 28.01.2020, 06.02.2020, 15.02.2020 and 25.04.2020 were issued by the respondents to the petitioner asking him to deposit the due instalments and interest. Total amount of instalments and interest payable by the petitioner upto 31.03.2020 accumulated to Rs. 1,77,35,692.00 as per the aforesaid notice dated 25.04.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited third instalment of Rs. Consequently, notices dated 28.01.2020, 06.02.2020, 15.02.2020 and 25.04.2020 were issued by the respondents to the petitioner asking him to deposit the due instalments and interest. Total amount of instalments and interest payable by the petitioner upto 31.03.2020 accumulated to Rs. 1,77,35,692.00 as per the aforesaid notice dated 25.04.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited third instalment of Rs. 30,11,905.00 on 29.04.2020 which was due and payable on or before 15.11.2019. The Bank Guarantee submitted by the petitioner had also expired which was not renewed by him despite request of the respondents. Condition no. 28 of the Agreement was also violated. Hence, the respondents again gave a notice dated 02.05.2020 requiring the petitioner to pay the arrears and to renew the Bank Guarantee which was followed by notices dated 11.05.2020, 23.05.2020, 05.06.2020, 12.06.2020 and 18.06.2020. The petitioner deposited part amount of fourth instalment (Rs. 20,07,937.00) on 23.05.2020 and Rs. 10,03,968.00 on 11.06.2020. Thus, admittedly the petitioner has not deposited the 5th, 6th and 7th instalments which were due and payable on or before 15th January, 15th February and 31st March 2020, respectively. He has also not deposited interest in terms of the contract. Sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to deposit the arrears by issuing notices as aforementioned and to comply with Condition no. 28. Therefore, for breach of conditions of contract the impugned orders have been passed cancelling the contract in terms of clause 40 of the Agreement. Thus the impugned orders do not suffer from any manifest error of law. 15. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of time to deposit the arrears in instalment, cannot be accepted in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, firstly the petitioner has willfully violated conditions of contract resulting in cancellation of contract in terms of clause 40 of the Agreement and Secondly this Court can neither rewrite contract by providing a new schedule of payment nor can suspend the operation of clause 40 of the Agreement. 16. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he could not deposit instalments due to lock down from 24.03.2020 on account of the Pandemic Covid19, is wholly unfounded. Undisputed facts as noted above clearly shows that the petitioner has been a regular defaulter. Monthly instalments of contractual amount were due and payable much before the start of lock down. 17. Undisputed facts as noted above clearly shows that the petitioner has been a regular defaulter. Monthly instalments of contractual amount were due and payable much before the start of lock down. 17. A writ lies when any fundamental or legal rights are infringed. A writ of mandamus can be issued in favour of a person when he has legally protected and judicially enforceable subsisting right, vide Director of Settlements Vs M.R. Apparao (2002) 4 SCC 638. A writ of prohibition can be issued only when patent lack of jurisdiction is made out, vide Union of India Vs Upendra Singh (1994) 3 SCC 357 (para 4) and S. Govind Menon Vs Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1274 . A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or Tribunals or where the impugned orders suffers from manifest error of law. None of the above circumstances exist in the case of the present petitioner which may entitle him for relief in the nature of writ of mandamus or certiorari as prayed. The impugned orders have been passed in terms of the agreement on breach of conditions of agreement, for which a writ of certiorari cannot be issued. 18. It is settled law that a person who approaches the court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. In other words he owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and refrain from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. If he is found guilty of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, as happened in the present case, the court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person. The above principle is supported by the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oswal Fats & Oil Ltd. Vs Commissioner (Administration) (2010) 4 SCC 728. 19. In the case of S.P. Chengalvaya Naidu Vs Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 (para 7 and 8), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. 19. In the case of S.P. Chengalvaya Naidu Vs Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 (para 7 and 8), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. A person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A litigant who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party. 20. We find that the petitioner has willfully suppressed material facts and has attempted to mislead this Court by filing incomplete copy of the Agreement dated 02.01.2019 suppressing the entire portion of this Agreement containing conditions of contract. He has also not filed agreed schedule of payment of instalments which was part of the Agreement dated 02.01.2019. This conduct of the petitioner also disentitles him to invoke equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 21. Insofar as the question of black listing is concerned, it goes without saying that in the event the respondents propose to take any such action for black listing they shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any order of black listing. 22. For all the reasons aforestated, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with costs.