Order : (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.) 1. This review petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 6.12.2024 passed in WPS No.7971 of 2024 filed by respondent No.5 herein Nirmal Kumar Singh against his transfer order dated 30.11.2024. Review Petitioner D.K. Chandel is seeking review of the order dated 6.12.2024 on the ground that Nirmal Kumar Singh, respondent No.5 herein and petitioner in WPS No.7971 of 2024 has suppressed material facts and obtained order dated 6.12.2024 behind the back of the review petitioner. 2. Brief facts to decide the instant review petition are that the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Public Works Department has issued transfer order dated 30.11.2024 by which review petitioner D.K. Chandel has been transferred from Public Works Department, Raipur to Public Works Department, Bemetara, whereas respondent No.5 herein Nirmal Kumar Singh has been transferred from Public Works Department, Bemetara to Public Works Department, Raipur on administrative exigency. Respondent No.5 herein has challenged his transfer order and on 6.12.2024, when WPS No.7971 of 2024 came up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner therein Nirmal Kumar Singh submitted that the petitioner therein is going to retire on 30.6.2025 on attaining the age of superannuation and only 7 months are left, as such the transfer order is not in accordance with the transfer policy of the State Government. However, the petitioner therein Nirmal Kumar Singh suppressed the fact that in pursuance of the transfer order dated 30.11.2024, he had already joined his transferred place at Raipur and further he has made a wrong statement that a transfer policy pertaining to year 2022 is in existence. This Court, only on the premises that Nirmal Kumar Singh is going to retire on 30.6.2025 and further according to the transfer policy of 2022 there is a ban on transfer if any employee is going to retire within one year, allowed the writ petition of Nirmal Kumar Singh. Review Petitioner D.K. Chandel, who was arrayed as respondent No.5 in WPS No.7971 of 2024 filed by petitioner Nirmal Kumar Singh was not noticed by this Court and relying upon the submission made in WPS No.7971 of 2024 as also the transfer policy annexed as Annexure P7 in that writ petition, passed the order dated 6.12.2024 allowing the writ petition. Review Petitioner D.K. Chandel, who was arrayed as respondent No.5 in WPS No.7971 of 2024 filed by petitioner Nirmal Kumar Singh was not noticed by this Court and relying upon the submission made in WPS No.7971 of 2024 as also the transfer policy annexed as Annexure P7 in that writ petition, passed the order dated 6.12.2024 allowing the writ petition. It is pertinent to mention the fact here that the order dated 6.12.2024 was challenged by present review petitioner D.K. Chandel in an appeal, being Writ Appeal No.10 of 2025 and a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 16.1.2025, has dismissed the writ appeal as withdrawn, however, present review petitioner D.K. Chandel was granted liberty to file a review petition as he was not noticed before passing of order dated 6.12.2024 and the instant review petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for review petitioner D.K. Chandel submits that Nirmal Kumar Singh who was the petitioner in WPS No.7971 of 2024 has suppressed the material fact that there is no existence of transfer policy of the year 2022. The said transfer policy dated 12.8.2022 was only for a period of one year and secondly review petitioner D.K. Chandel has already joined his transferred place at Bemetara on 3.12.2024 while assuming charges. However, the said fact was not brought by Nirmal Kumar Singh in WPS No.7971 of 2024 and after passing of the order dated 6.12.2024 he has again joined at Bemetara on 9.12.2024. This way, Nirmal Kumar Singh has misled the Court and while suppressing the material facts has obtained the order dated 6.12.2024 in his favour. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramjas Foundation and another v. Union of India and others, (2010) 14 SCC 38 . 4. This way, Nirmal Kumar Singh has misled the Court and while suppressing the material facts has obtained the order dated 6.12.2024 in his favour. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramjas Foundation and another v. Union of India and others, (2010) 14 SCC 38 . 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 herein Nirmal Kumar Singh on advance copy has submitted that no material fact has been suppressed by him and relying upon the ground that the petitioner is going to be superannuated on 30.6.2025, which is just 7 months away from the date of his retirement and further according to the transfer policy 2022 in which he has bona fide belief that it is still in existence made his submission in WPS No.7971 of 2024 and as such respondent No.5 herein Nirmal Kumar Singh is not guilty of suppression of any fact or for any misrepresentation. He further submits that everything has been done bona fidely. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with great circumspection. 6. True it is that respondent No.5 herein Nirmal Kumar Singh is going to retire on 30.6.2025, however, it is equally true that the transfer policy 2022 was not in existence which prohibits transfer of any employee who is going to retire within one year from the date of his transfer order, but, said transfer policy 2022 is not in existence, has deliberately not been stated by learned counsel for respondent No.5 herein Nirmal Kumar Singh and in order to secure order in favour of Nirmal Kumar Singh the document had been annexed with WPS No.7971 of 2024 knowing well that the transfer policy 2022 is only for one year and by this respondent No.5 herein Nirmal Kumar Singh has committed mischief with this Court and he has not come to this Court with clean hands, which is a sacrosanct for getting a relief from a Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Ramjas case (supra) as under: “21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Ramjas case (supra) as under: “21. The principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case. 27. On appeal, Lord Cozens-Hardy, M.R. and Warrington, L.J. approved the view taken by the Divisional Court. Scrutton, L.J. who agreed that the appeal should be dismissed observed: (R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commr., (1917) 1 KB 486 (CA), KB p. 514) "... and it has been for many years the rule of the court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts-facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside any action which it has to taken on the faith of the imperfect statement." 28. The abovenoted rules have been applied by this Court in a large number of cases for declining relief to a party whose conduct is blameworthy and who has not approached the Court with clean hands – Hari Narain v. Badri Das, AIR 1963 SC 1558 , Welcom Hotel v. State of A.P., (1983) 4 SCC 575, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka, (1991) 3 SCC 261 , S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 , A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P., (2007) 4 SCC 221 , Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI, (2007) 8 SCC 449 , Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India, (2008) 2 SCC 326 , K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481 , G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel, (2009) 3 SCC 141 and Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114 . 29. In the last mentioned judgment, the Court lamented on the increase in the number of cases in which the parties have tried to misuse the process of court by making false and/or misleading statements or by suppressing the relevant facts or by trying to mislead the court in passing order in their favour and observed: (Dalip Singh case, (2010) 2 SCC 114 , SCC pp. 116-17, paras 1-2) "1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. 'satya' (truth) and 'ahimsa’ (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post- Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. 2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Narain vs. Badri Das reported in AIR 1963 SC 1558 has held in para 9 that : “ 9 . ….. That may be so, but the fact still remains that two important statements which, if true, may have been of considerable assistance to the appellant in invoking the protection of S. 13(1) (a) even on the construction placed by the High Court on that section are found to be untrue, and that, in our opinion, is a very serious infirmity in the petition itself. It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. That is why we have come to the conclusion that in the present case special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked. Accordingly, special leave is revoked and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs of the respondent.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and Another vs. Govt. of Karnataka and another, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1726 has held in para 2 as under: “ 2. ….. On December 16-17, 1987 two writ petitions were filed by the respective petitioners in the Karnataka High Court challenging the acquisition on the ground that the awards were not made within the stipulated time. In these two writ petitions, the Karnataka High Court granted interim stay of further proceedings in respect of the acquisition of the said lands. These petitions were dismissed by a learned single Judge of that High Court on November 29, 1988. Appeals against the decision of a learned single Judge were dismissed by the Karnataka High Court on October 6, 1989, by a Division Bench of that High Court. The petitioners preferred these Special Leave Petitions, namely S. L. P. Nos. 823 and 824 of 1990 against the decision of the Division Bench of that High Court, and obtained an interim stay of dispossession therein. The petitioners preferred these Special Leave Petitions, namely S. L. P. Nos. 823 and 824 of 1990 against the decision of the Division Bench of that High Court, and obtained an interim stay of dispossession therein. Whatever the ultimate effect of the stay orders, in view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, to which we have already referred earlier, it is beyond dispute that the fact of the stay orders was highly material in the determination of these Special Leave Petitions. Curiously enough, there is no reference in the Specal 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 nondisclosure 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 Art. 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. Likewise, in the matter of Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao vs. V.K. Parasaran and others reported in AIR 1996 SC 2687 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in 11 as under: “ 11. ….. There is no "prima facie" material on the record from which any inference may be drawn that either respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 2 gave "false evidence" or produced "false" or "fabricated" evidence in the Court. Considering the submissions of the applicant, stripped to their bare essentials, the factual matrix on which allegations have been made against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 do not attract the provisions of Sections 191, 192 or 193, L.P.C. The filing of the present application appears to us to be an effort to get "reopened" the case even after this Court decided Criminal Appeals Nos. 275-277 of 1993 on 16-3-1993 and dismissed the review petition also more than three years ago. Finality must attach to some stage of judicial proceedings. 275-277 of 1993 on 16-3-1993 and dismissed the review petition also more than three years ago. Finality must attach to some stage of judicial proceedings. The course adopted by the applicant is impermissible and his application is based on mis-conception of law and facts. No. litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived or frivolous petitions. After giving our careful consideration to the submissions made at the bar as well as those contained in the memorandum of the application, we are of the opinion that this application is misconceived, untenable and has no merits whatsoever. It is accordingly dismissed.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 has held in paras 26 & 28 as under: “26. It is well settled that “fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” proclaimed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries before. Reference was made by the counsel to a leading decision of v. Jagannath¹ wherein quoting the above observations, this Court held that a judgment/decree obtained by fraud this Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu has to be treated as a nullity by every court. 28. So far as the proposition of law is concerned, there can be no two opinions. The learned counsel for the respondents also did not dispute the principles laid down in the above decisions as also in several other judgments. They, however, stated that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ratio laid down in the above cases has no application.” 11. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of All India EPF Staff Federation vs. Union of India and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1629 has held in para 4 that : “ 4. The present Special Leave Petitions challenging the orders dated 20 th March, 2024 and 25 th April, 2024 was filed on 14 th June, 2024. The Delhi High Court's website shows that on 3 rd May, 2024, the petitioner moved an application being CM Application No. 26033/2024 for early hearing of the Petition. The present Special Leave Petitions challenging the orders dated 20 th March, 2024 and 25 th April, 2024 was filed on 14 th June, 2024. The Delhi High Court's website shows that on 3 rd May, 2024, the petitioner moved an application being CM Application No. 26033/2024 for early hearing of the Petition. It was obvious that the prayer for early hearing was made as the interim relief was refused and a longer date in September, 2024 was fixed. The order dated 3 rd May, 2024 passed on the said application shows that the Advocate appearing for the petitioner, after arguing the matter for some time, did not press the said application and, therefore, the same was dismissed. Therefore, the High Court directed that the case shall be listed on 5 th September, 2024. Most importantly, in these Special Leave Petitions, which are filed on 14 th June, 2024, the material fact of filing CM Application No. 26033/2024 was suppressed and even the order dated 3 rd May, 2024 passed on the said application was suppressed.” 12. Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Jayaram and others vs. Bangalore Developmenet Authority and others reported in (2022) 12 SCC 815 has held in paras 10 & 14 as under: “ 10. The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced. 14. In order to check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter and more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistent orders through different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability of making a false statement, the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations were or are pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law.” 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amar Singh vs. Union of India and others reported in (2011) 7 SCC 69 has held in para 57 as under: “ 57. In one of the most celebrated cases upholding this principle, in the Court of Appeal in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commr., ex p Princess de Polignac [(1917) 1 KB 486 (CA)] K.B. Scrutton, L.J. formulated as under: “……...and it has been for many years the rule of the court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts-facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it-the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement." 14. In light of aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is quite apparent that respondent No.5 herein Nirmal Kumar Singh has deliberately suppressed the material facts regarding existence and applicability of transfer policy 2022 which is in fact not in existence. Nirmal Kumar Singh has further made a pleading in respect of the transfer policy 2022 and has filed the said document deliberately only in order to obtain an order in his favour. He has further suppressed the fact that after passing of the transfer order, he has joined his transferred place and thereby misled this Court which is in fact misuse of proceedings of the Court. He ought to have placed true material facts of the case and should have placed all the materials so that this Court can pass order while appreciating the entire aspect of the matter. He ought to have placed true material facts of the case and should have placed all the materials so that this Court can pass order while appreciating the entire aspect of the matter. He has further went to take charge on the basis of the order dated 6.12.2024 passed by this Court in the writ petition which is also not acted upon bona fidely. The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the Court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced. 15. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the suppression of material fact by respondent No.5 herein Nirmal Kumar Singh is a misconduct and for this reason alone the present review petition is liable to be allowed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- which to be borne by respondent No.5 herein Nirmal Kumar Singh. Nirmal Kumar Singh is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- before the Registry of this Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the said amount is not deposited by him before the Registry within the said period then the Registry is directed to initiate proceedings against him in order to recover the said amount in accordance with law. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the review petition is allowed . The order dated 6.12.2024 passed in WPS No.7971 of 2024 is hereby set aside. The respondents authorities are directed to execute the transfer order dated 30.11.2024 and take joining of review petitioner D.K. Chandel at his transferred place of posting at Bemetara and relieve respondent No.5 herein Nirmal Kumar Singh for joining at his transferred place of posting at Raipur forthwith. 17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the review petition is allowed.