ORDER : Rakesh Srivastava, J. 1. Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed praying inter alia the following reliefs: (a) issue a writ, order, direction in the nature of quashing the impugned order dated 07.12.2019 passed by opposite party no. 1 vide the revision no. 1063/2019 in the interest of justice contained in Annexure No. 1 (b) issue a writ, order, direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.06.2019 passed by opposite party no. 2 and release the amount of Rs. 4,71,227/- and direct the opposite parties to refund the money with interest @ 18% in the interest of justice contained in Annexure No. 9, 10 & 11. (c) issue a writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus and commanding the opposite parties to pay Rs. 60,000/- as demurrage and Rs. 50,000/- as Advocate fees. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are these: On 29.05.2019 at about 07:00 p.m., the officials of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Ghaziabad (for short the 'Mandi Samiti'), intercepted two trucks bearing registration nos. HR 69 D 2960 and HR 69 C 4239, at NHAI Galalpurwa Toll Plaza. Each truck was laden with 350 quintals of rice which was being transported by the petitioner from Bahraich to Delhi without valid papers as required under The Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (for short 'the Adhiniyam'). The officials, after confiscating the vehicles and the rice under section 36 of the Adhiniyam prepared a seizure memo and made a report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. Two criminal cases bearing Nos. 23518/2019 & 23519/2019 were instituted against the petitioner and the truck drivers namely Ravi Yadav and Jagtan Singh. 4. On 13.06.2019, before the court in seisin of the case could proceed with the complaint, the petitioner filed an application before the Mandi Samiti for compounding the offence. The Mandi Samiti, by its order dated 13.06.2019 passed under section 37-A(1) of the Adhiniyam acceded to the prayer and compounded the offence against the petitioner and the truck drivers, subject to payment of Rs. 4,71,226/- (Rs. 34,038 towards mandi fee and development cess and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards composition fee with regard to truck no. HR 69 D 2960 and Rs. 37,188 towards mandi fee and development cess and Rs. 4,71,226/- (Rs. 34,038 towards mandi fee and development cess and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards composition fee with regard to truck no. HR 69 D 2960 and Rs. 37,188 towards mandi fee and development cess and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards composition fee with regard to truck no. HR 69 C 4239). On 13.06.2019 itself, the petitioner deposited the amount with the Mandi Samiti through RTGS. As soon as the payment was made, the trucks and the goods seized were released in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, by two separate but identical orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the two truck drivers were dropped. One such order dated 26.06.2019 passed in Case No. 23519 of 2019 is reproduced below: ^^26@06@19 ifjokn izLrqr ifjoknh ds vf/koDrk mifLFkr mudh rjQ ls dFku fd;k x;k dh ekeys dk 'keu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&37,Œ ds rgr fd;k tk pqdk vr% oks ekeys dks vkxs ugh pykuk pkgrs gSA lfpo d`f"k mRiknu e.Mh lfefr Jh lR;iky xaxokj dh fjiksVZ i=kad d`ŒmŒeŒlŒ lpy ny 2019&209 fnuakd 13@06@19 dks voyksdu c;ku fd;kA vk/kkj i;kZIr vRk% /kkjk 37¼2½ ds rgr dk;Zokgh lekIr dh tkrh gSA^^ 5. On 28.08.2019, the petitioner filed a revision (bearing Revision No. 256 of 2019, M/s. Atul Rahul Agro Private Limited Vs. Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad) under section 32 of the Adhiniyam before the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P., respondent no. 1 herein, against the order dated 13.06.2019, inter alia, contending that the rice was being transported on valid papers. The said submission did not find favour with the respondent no. 1 and the revision was rejected as not maintainable by an order dated 07.12.2019. The respondent no. 1 held that once the petitioner had admitted his guilt and the offence had been compounded on the request of the petitioner itself, and the goods alongwith the trucks have been released, the challenge to the order compounding the offence was not maintainable. 1 and the revision was rejected as not maintainable by an order dated 07.12.2019. The respondent no. 1 held that once the petitioner had admitted his guilt and the offence had been compounded on the request of the petitioner itself, and the goods alongwith the trucks have been released, the challenge to the order compounding the offence was not maintainable. The relevant portion of the order date 07.12.2019 is extracted below: ^^iz'Ukxr fuxjkuh es cgl ds le; fuxjkuhdrkZ QeZ ds vf/koDrk ,oa foi{kh e.Mh lfefr] xkft;kckn dh vksj ls lfpo mifLFkr gq,A mHk; i{kks dks U;k;ky; esa foLrkj ls lquk x;k vkSj muds }kjk nkf[ky vfHkys[kks dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA fuxjkuhdrkZ us mŒizŒ d`f"k mRiknu e.Mh vf/kfu;e 1964 dh /kkjk&37 ds vraxZr izkFkZuk&i= fnukad 13-06-2019 e.Mh lfefr ds le{k izLrqr fd;k Fkk] ftlesa fuxjkuhdrkZ us viuk vijk/k Lohdkj djrs gq, ns; e.Mh 'kqYd] fodkl lsl rFkk 'keu 'kqYd ysdj eky ,oa okgu dks NksM+us ds fy, vkns'k ikfjr djus gsrq e.Mh lfefr ls izkFkZuk dh FkhA fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= ij fopkjksijkar e.Mh lfefr us vkns'k fnukad 13-06-2019 }kjk fuxjkuh QeZ ij e.Mh 'kqYd] fodkl lsl rFkk 'keu 'kqYd vf/kjksfir fd;k FkkA fuxjkuhdrkZ us e.Mh lfefr }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 13-06-2019 ds vuqikyu esa vf/kjksfir dh x;h /kujkf'k dks e.Mh lfefr esa tek dj fn;k gS vkSj mDr Øe es fuxjkuhdrkZ ds nksuks Vªdks dks eky lfgr NksM+ fn;k gSA pwafd fuxjkuhdrkZ us vius vijk/k dks Lohdkj dj fy;k gS vkSj e.Mh lfefr] xkft;kckn }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 13-06-2019 ds vuqikyu esa vf/kjksfir dqy /kujkf'k :Œ4]71]226-00 jlhn la[;k&0304537 fnukad 13-0-2019 ,oa jlhn la[;k&0304538 fnukad 13-06-2019 }kjk e.Mh lfefr] xkft;kckn esa tek dj nh x;h gSA vr% mDr of.kZr rF;ksa ds ifjis{; esa fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk nkf[ky fuxjkuh iks"k.kh; u gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA iz'uxr vkns'k dh izfr fuxjkuhdrkZ QeZ ,oa lHkkifr@lfpo e.Mh lfefr] xkft;kckn dks izsf"kr dh tk;s^A 6. The orders dated 13.06.2019 and 07.12.2019 are under challenge in the present petition. 7. Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no evasion of any mandi fee and it was on account of the breakdown of truck No. HR 69 D 2960 that the trucks reached the toll on 29.05.2019. The orders dated 13.06.2019 and 07.12.2019 are under challenge in the present petition. 7. Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no evasion of any mandi fee and it was on account of the breakdown of truck No. HR 69 D 2960 that the trucks reached the toll on 29.05.2019. The counsel submits that the paper accompanying the said trucks were in order but in order to harass the petitioner and for extraneous consideration the trucks were seized by the officials of the Mandi Samiti. The counsel has contended with vehemence that since seizure of rice and the trucks was not reported to the Chief Judicial Magistrate forthwith, as contemplated under the proviso to section 36(1) of the Adhiniyam, the entire proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be set aside. He has further contended that in terms of section 37-A(1) reproduced in paragraph 15 of the petition, the maximum composition fee which could be charged from the petitioner was Rs. 20,000/- with regard to one offence and as such the imposition of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards composition fee was without jurisdiction. No other submission has been made. 8. Sri N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the impugned orders. He has submitted that the rice was being transported by the petitioner without valid papers. He has submitted that the goods were seized and on receiving the application from the petitioner for compounding of offence, the same was compounded and as such it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the seizure. The counsel has submitted that the composition fee charged from the petitioner is in accordance with section 37-A(1) of the Adhiniyam. He has submitted that the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court by quoting unamended section 37-A in the writ petition. The petition according to him is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. 9. The petitioner has challenged the levy of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the strength of section 37-A(1) of the Adhiniyam, reproduced by him in paragraph 15 of the petition. Paragraph 15 of the petition are extracted below: 15. The petition according to him is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. 9. The petitioner has challenged the levy of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the strength of section 37-A(1) of the Adhiniyam, reproduced by him in paragraph 15 of the petition. Paragraph 15 of the petition are extracted below: 15. That "section-37 A Composition of offence-(1) A market committee or its sub-committee or with the authorisation by a resolution of a committee, its Chairman, may accept from any person who has committed or is reasonably suspected or having committed an offence punishable under this Act in addition to the fee or other amount recoverable from him, a sum of money not exceeding rupees 53(Twenty thousand) by way of composition fee and compound the offence." 10. Sri N.C. Mehrotra has submitted that section 37-A(1) reproduced in paragraph 15 of the petition is an unamended section. He has submitted that by U.P. Act 24 of 2018, Section 37-A of the Adhiniyam has been amended. Amended section 37-A is reproduced below: 37-A. Composition of offences.- (1) A market committee or its sub Committee or with the authorization by a resolution of a committee, its Chairman, may accept from any person who has committed or is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence punishable under this Act in addition to the fee or other amount recoverable from him, a sum of money equal to ten times the sum of market fee and development cess assessed due on the equivalent agricultural produce in accordance with the explanation given in the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 66 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Niyamavali, 1965 or Rupees Two Lakh, whichever is less and for other offence, a sum of money not exceeding rupees twenty thousand by way of composition fee and compound the offence. (2) On the composition of any offence under sub-section (1) no proceeding shall be taken or continued against the person concerned in respect of such offence, and if any proceedings in respect of that offence have already been instituted against him in any Court, the composition shall have 9 the effect of his acquittal. (emphasis supplied) 11. The major contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the maximum fee which could be levied towards composition fee was Rs. 20,000/-. (emphasis supplied) 11. The major contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the maximum fee which could be levied towards composition fee was Rs. 20,000/-. The very foundation of this argument is unstable as the learned counsel for the petitioner has been relying on the unamended provisions of the Adhiniyam which did not provide for the composition fee of Rs. Two Lakhs. The amended provisions, as applicable to the present matter, expressly provide for compounding of offences punishable under the Act on the payment of a sum of money equal to ten times the sum of market fee and development cess assessed due on the equivalent agricultural produce in accordance with the explanation given in the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 66 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishí Utpadan Mandi Niyamavali, 1965 or Rupees Two Lakh, whichever is less. Thus, the petitioner's challenge to the authority of the market committee's power to charge Rupees Two Lakhs is absolutely misconceived. 12. Neither the application moved by the petitioner for compounding nor the order passed by the Mandi Samiti thereon has been brought on record. A copy of memo of revision dated 28.08.2019 preferred by the petitioner against the compounding order dated 13.06.2019 is also not on record. A perusal of annexure no. 6, which is alleged to be the memo of revision, shows that it is in fact a letter addressed to the Director Mandi Samiti requesting him to direct the concerned officials not to harass the petitioner. On top of the said letter, the following heading has been written by hand. "Under the inherent and supervisory powers under Section 32 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1984" 13. A perusal of Section 37-A as quoted by the petitioner in Paragraph 15 of the writ petition (reproduced above) on one hand, and Section 37-A as amended on the other, clearly shows that Section 37-A has been wrongly quoted by the petitioner. It is also to be noted that in spite of the amended provision being brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has continued to rely upon the unamended provision to argue that a maximum composition fee of Rs. 20,000/- could have been charged from the petitioner. It is also to be noted that in spite of the amended provision being brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has continued to rely upon the unamended provision to argue that a maximum composition fee of Rs. 20,000/- could have been charged from the petitioner. The failure to bring the relevant documents such as the application for compounding and the memo or revision, and the overall conduct of the petitioner shows that the petitioner has not come before this Court with clean hands. The petitioner is thus guilty of suppression, concealment, misrepresentation of facts and attempting to mislead this Court. 14. In exercising its discretionary power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, this Court is not just a Court of law, but is also a Court of equity and a person who invokes the writ jurisdiction of this Court is duty-bound to place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. It is well settled that in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court always keeps in mind the conduct of the party invoking such jurisdiction. If the petitioner does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant material or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449 , the Apex Court has observed that the said rule has been evolved in larger public interest to - "deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible." (emphasis supplied) 15. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited, (2008) 12 SCC 481, the Apex Court reiterated that the petitioners approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must disclose all the material facts without any qualification. It was held as under:- "38. 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. It was held as under:- "38. 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". 39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs. [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)] is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court." (emphasis supplied) 16. In light of the petitioner's deliberate attempts at misleading this Court and the judgments of the Apex Court cited above, the present petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 17. Even on merits, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. In light of the petitioner's deliberate attempts at misleading this Court and the judgments of the Apex Court cited above, the present petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 17. Even on merits, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. Admittedly, on 13.06.2019, after the goods and the trucks were seized and criminal cases were instituted against the petitioner, the petitioner moved an application before the Mandi Samiti admitting the commission of offence and expressing his desire to pay the requisite mandi fee and development cess along with penalty if any. The request of the petitioner was acceded to and the Mandi Samiti, through its order dated 13.06.2019, compounded the offence subject to the payment of a total sum of Rs. 4,71,226/- (Rs. 2,34,038 with regard to truck no. HR 69 D 2960 and Rs. 2,37,188 with regard to truck No. HR 69 C 4239). The very same day the petitioner deposited the said amount in the Mandi Samiti through RTGS, and thereafter, the goods and the trucks were released and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the two truck drivers were dropped. 19. The petitioner accepted the order passed by the Secretary mandi and in pursuance thereto deposited a sum of Rs. 4,71,226/- through RTGS in the criminal cases initiated instituted against him and on that basis, both the trucks of the petitioner were released and the criminal cases instituted against the petitioner were dropped. 20. In the aforesaid background, once the petitioner has admitted his guilt and has opted for compounding of the same, and has further deposited the penalty imposed upon him and has had the trucks released after getting the criminal cases instituted against him withdrawn, it is not open to the petitioner to turn around and challenge the seizure and order compounding the offence. The revision preferred by the petitioner against the compounding order dated 13.06.2019 passed by the Secretary, Mandi Samiti, has rightly been dismissed by the respondent no. 1 as not maintainable. 21. The revision preferred by the petitioner against the said order has rightly been dismissed by the Director, Mandi Samiti. 22. Thus, in addition to suppression, concealment and attempts at misleading this Court, the writ petition is also totally misconceived and is accordingly dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs. 2 lakhs. 23. 1 as not maintainable. 21. The revision preferred by the petitioner against the said order has rightly been dismissed by the Director, Mandi Samiti. 22. Thus, in addition to suppression, concealment and attempts at misleading this Court, the writ petition is also totally misconceived and is accordingly dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs. 2 lakhs. 23. The petitioner is directed to deposit the cost with the Senior Registrar of this Court at Lucknow within six weeks from today. The cost so deposited shall be remitted to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. In case, the cost is not deposited by the petitioner within the time granted to him for the purpose, the same shall be realized from him as arrears of land revenue.