ORDER 1. Present petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution by a propreitorship firm represented through its propreitor, Shri Keshav Singhal, praying for following relief:- “(i) Respondent be directed to cancel the advertisement and be restrained from committing the act of allocation of the property under P/1. (ii) Respondent be directed to approve the allocation made by the petitioner. (iii) Respondent be directed to permit the petitioner to receive the premium and to allocate the property under the terms and contract. (iv) The act of respondent of locking the premise as shown in Annexure P/2 may kindly be quashed. (v) Respondent be directed to open the locked premise. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the present facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of petitioner.” 2. After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties on admission the skeletal facts unfolded are that by an agreement entered into between the respondent/Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and petitioner for execution of work under the promoted scheme namely Dafarin Sarai, Padav (Gwalior) based on principle of Build on Trade (BOT) number of shops were required to be constructed. 3. It appears that some dispute regarding five shops took place between the petitioner and Municipal Corporation which impelled the Corporation to seal said five shops. Aggrieved, the propreitor of petitioner/firm, Shri Keshav Singhal preferred W.P. No.313/2018 praying for following relief:- 7-1 ;g fd] izfr;kfpdkdrkZ Øekad&2 dks ;g funsZf'kr fd;k tk, fd ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vkf/kiR; dh nqdkus dzekad&9] 12] 13] 39] 40 ds vfoyac rkys [kksys tk;saA 7-2 ;g fd] izfr;kfpdkdrkZ dzekad&2 dks ;g funsZf'kr fd;k tk, fd ;kfpdkdrkZ ls vuqca/k fnukad 09@07@1999 esa of.kZr 'krks± ds vfrfjDr /ku dh ekax u dh tk;sA 7-3 ;g fd] vU; dksbZ lgk;rk ;k vuqrks"k rks ekuuh; U;k;ky; U;k;fgr esa mfpr o vko';d le>s ;kfpdkdrkZ dks izfr;kfpdkdrkZ dzekad&2 ls fnykbZ tkosA 4. In the said W.P. No.313/2018 the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior filed its return and the said petition is pending adjudication till date. 5. During pendency of the aforesaid WP No.313/2018, present W.P. No.7551/2020 has been filed assailing Annexure P/1, a public notice published in the newspaper by the respondent/Corporation inviting bid/offer for auctioning out the said five shops. In the said W.P. No.313/2018 the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior filed its return and the said petition is pending adjudication till date. 5. During pendency of the aforesaid WP No.313/2018, present W.P. No.7551/2020 has been filed assailing Annexure P/1, a public notice published in the newspaper by the respondent/Corporation inviting bid/offer for auctioning out the said five shops. In the present petition W.P. No.7551/2020 following prayer is made:- “In light of aforesaid fact and circumstances it is humbly prayed that Hon'ble Court may kindly direct respondents to abstain from allocating the property in furtherance of advertisement issued by them during the pendency of present petition and to open the lock and sealed premise.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted by this Court as regards the objection raised by the standing counsel for the Municipal Corporation that petitioner has not disclosed about filing and pendency of earlier W.P. No.313/2018 despite the subject matter of the present and past WP being overlapping, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause raised in both the petitions is distinct. It is submitted by him that instant petition assails the auction proceeding vide P/1 whereas the earlier W.P. No.313/2018 merely questioned the legality and validity of the action of respondent/Corporation in sealing the five shops in question. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an amendment application is filed for revealing the aforesaid fact of pendency of earlier petition which does not find mention in the present petition. 6.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner has however insisted upon this Court with all the vehemence at his command that the subject matter of present petition and W.P. No.313/2018 are distinct and therefore, it was not incumbent upon the petitioner to have disclosed the fact of filing and pendency of W.P. No.l313/2018. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/corporation on the other hand relied upon MODI SPINNING & WEAVING MLLS CO. LTD AND ANOTHER v. LADHA RAM & CO. AIR 1977 SC 680 to contend that an amendment of the kind moved by the petitioner ought not to be allowed. 8. The question before this Court at this stage is as to whether to take cognizance of the cause raised herein in the backdrop of the pendency of W.P. No.313/2018 and the consequence of petitioner having not disclosed this fact in the present petition. 8. The question before this Court at this stage is as to whether to take cognizance of the cause raised herein in the backdrop of the pendency of W.P. No.313/2018 and the consequence of petitioner having not disclosed this fact in the present petition. 8.1 It is trite principle of writ jurisdiction that it is inter alia based on equity. Conceptually equity is abhorent to the concept of suppression of material facts. No person is entitled to a relief under equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution if such person does not come to the Court with clean hands. 8.2 The factum of filing and pendency of W.P. No.313/2018 in the considered opinion of this Court is material and substantial fact which has a direct bearing on the cause raised herein. The Corporation's action of sealing those five shops in question has been put to challenge in W.P. No.313/2018. Those very shops are now being put to aution. Thus, the subject matter of challenge in W.P. No.313/2018 and the present is substantially common. This commonality of subject matter made it obligatory for petitioner to disclose the factum of filing and pendency of W.P. No.313/2018. 8.3 By not disclosing the said material fact of filing and pendency of W.P. No.313/2018, petitioner has supperessed material fact and thus, has disentitled himself to any relief in the present case under the equitable jurisdiction of Article 226 of Constitution. 9. I.A. No. 5664/2020 seeking amendment is an after thought which cannnot be the lacunae which reflects a substantial and incurable defect in this WP. 10. In view of above discussion, this Court has no manner of doubt that present petition deserves to be dismissed in limine for the petitioner having suppressed material fact. 11. Since petitioner has not come with clean hands by suppressing material fact, the precious time of this Court has been wasted in adjudicating this petition which could have been utilized for deciding more deserving causes. Thus, the petitioner is liable for cost. 12. Consequently, exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on the petitioner which shall be deposited within a period of 15 days with the Registry of this Court to be utilized for enhancing precautionary and preventive measures in this Court at Gwalior qua Covid-19. 13. Thus, the petitioner is liable for cost. 12. Consequently, exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on the petitioner which shall be deposited within a period of 15 days with the Registry of this Court to be utilized for enhancing precautionary and preventive measures in this Court at Gwalior qua Covid-19. 13. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the cause raised herein as a subsequent development in pending W.P. No.313/2018 by way of amendment.