ORDER : 1. Assailing the action of the respondents in not receiving the finished produces as per the purchase Order No. 10226.01/2K20-Q1/EPICovid/9870 (10282001031) dated 07.04.2020 placed by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner and also for inviting fresh tenders for supply of the same goods as mentioned in the said purchase order i.e. for supply of 5 lakh sterilized disposable bed sheets and 5 lakh sterilized disposable pillow covers, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Medical and Heard for respondent No. 2, Sri. P. Kishore Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 Corporation and Sri. Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that initially the petitioner was the successful bidder for supply of 5 lakh sterilized disposable bed sheets and 5 lakh sterilized disposable pillow covers and the purchase order dated 07.04.2020 has also been placed by respondent No. 1 and the total value of the consignment is Rs. 3,20,00,000/-. After receiving the purchase order, the petitioner by incurring huge expenditure has purchased the raw material required for production of the required quantity of bed sheets and pillow covers and has supplied one lakh sets. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of the requests being made by the petitioner for issuing delivery schedule, the authorities have not responded to the said requests and issued fresh tender notification. Learned counsel has further stated when the contract awarded to the petitioner is still in subsistence, the action of the respondents in issuing fresh tender notification cannot be countenanced and the same is against the basic principle of nature justice, equity and also the settled law and that the official respondents instead of acting in a fair, transparent and unbiased manner have issued a fresh tender notification causing huge loss to the petitioner herein. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the writ petition stating that the petitioner having participated in the process of tender issued afresh by the authorities and without disclosing said factum, has filed the present writ petition. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the writ petition stating that the petitioner having participated in the process of tender issued afresh by the authorities and without disclosing said factum, has filed the present writ petition. That in case the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the previous purchase order given by respondent No. 1 and if she has sustained any loss due to the non-issuance of the delivery schedules by the respondent authorities, her remedy is to approach the Civil Court and file a suit for Damages, but having participated in the process of tender issued afresh by the authorities, she cannot challenge the same, more so, when the unofficial respondents stood as lowest bidders and purchase order has already been issued in their favour, pursuant to which, they have also supplied the material to the authorities concerned. Learned counsel further states that due to interim orders passed by this Court, the authorities are not paying the bills to the unofficial respondents. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard. Perused the record. 6. A perusal of the material on record shows that nowhere in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition, there is any averment with regard to the participation of the petitioner in the process of tender issued afresh by the authorities for supply of 5 lakh sterilized disposable bed sheets and 5 lakh sterilized disposable pillow covers vide notification dated 12.08.2020. That this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases have held that the parties approaching the Court have to do so with clean hands and all facts should be disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of their case. 7. It is trite to say that the party approaching the Court must come with clean hands. The non-disclosure or concealment of material facts can itself be a ground for dismissal of the case. The petitioner herein has not disclosed the factum of her participating in the process of fresh tender notification issued by the authorities, which is presently challenged by her in the present Writ Petition. 8. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy vs. Govt. The non-disclosure or concealment of material facts can itself be a ground for dismissal of the case. The petitioner herein has not disclosed the factum of her participating in the process of fresh tender notification issued by the authorities, which is presently challenged by her in the present Writ Petition. 8. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy vs. Govt. of Karnataka, (1991) 3 SCC 261 : AIR 1991 SC 1726 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has denied relief to the appellant who had concealed the fact that the award was not made by the Land Acquisition Officer within the time specified in Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act because of the stay order passed by the High Court. While dismissing the special leave petition, the Court observed as under: “2.......Curiously enough, there is no reference in the special leave petitions to any of the stay orders and we came to know about these orders only when the respondents appeared in response to the notice and filed their counter-affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have a direct bearing on the question raised and the non-disclosure of the same certainly amounts to suppression of material facts. On this ground alone, the special leave petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the special leave petitions.” 9. In Prestige Lights Ltd. vs. SBI, (2007) 8 SCC 449 , it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court is not just a Court of law, but is also a Court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the judgment of Scrutton, L.J. in R. vs. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, (1917) 1 KB 486 (CA) and observed as under: “In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The 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.” 10. In S.P. Chengalavaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath, 1994 (1) SCC 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that any party approaching the Court by withholding a vital document in order to gain advantage over the other side would amount to fraud being played on the Court as well as the opposite side. The non-disclosure of necessary and complete facts alone is a sufficient ground to dismiss the present writ petition. 11. In the case on hand, the petitioner being fully aware that she has participated in the process of tender issued afresh by the authorities and being an unsuccessful bidder has not disclosed the said factum and obtained interim orders from the Court. The said act on the part of the petitioner cannot be countenanced by any stretch of imagination and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The petitioner having participated in the process of tender cannot challenge the issuance of tender notification on the ground that earlier purchase order was not allowed to be executed by the petitioner by the authorities concerned. The petitioner having participated in the process of tender cannot challenge the issuance of tender notification on the ground that earlier purchase order was not allowed to be executed by the petitioner by the authorities concerned. If the petitioner has sustained any loss due to the acts of the official respondents in not allowing her to supply the material, her remedy is to approach the Civil Court and file a suit for Damages or for recovery of any bill amounts due, but the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not disclosed the complete facts and suppressed her participation in the tender notification, which is now under challenge. 12. For the afore-stated reasons, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. However liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a civil suit for Damages/Recovery of bill amounts due, if any, if she is so advised. 13. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.