SRI. DR YASIN KHAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise from the orders of the learned Single Judge, whereby substantive relief was denied to the appellants on the sole ground of suppressi veri, in limine. In fact, the impugned orders do not reflect that there was any consideration of the contentions of the writ petitioners on merits.

(2.) After service of notice, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, vehemently opposes appeals making submission in justification of the impugned orders. He contends that writ jurisdiction is more equitable in nature, and therefore, persons knocking at the doors of the writ Court have to come with "clean hands, clean heads and clean hearts." Thus, having not happened, indulgence of the appellate Court is not warranted, contends the counsel placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Udayami Rvam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Samsthe Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 (1) SCC 560 wherein paragraph-16 has been profitably reproduced below:

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are inclined to limit the indulgence in the matter, as under and for the following reasons: