SAKHAWAT HUSSAIN Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned advocates for the parties and have perused the records of the case.

(2.) The contention of the writ petitioners in the Instant writ petition is that the respondent-Cantonment Board Authority has without any justified reason, declined to Issue tender form to the writ petitioners. Further contention of the writ petitioners is that tender notice issued by the respondent-Cantonment Board is contrary to the rules and regulations of the Cantonment Board. It appears that Writ Petitioner No. 1 is partner of several firms and one of his other firms has already participated in the tender, but its tender was placed at serial no. 2. !t has also been admitted that the said firm (Karamat Husain Brothers) which participated in the tender is only sister concern of the petitioner No. 2 of which petitioner No. 1 is a partner. Since, both firms are the sister concern and petitioner No. 1 is one of the partners, therefore, the petitioners have really participated in the tender and having failed to obtain the tender, this writ proceeding has been initiated by another partnership firm. This dubious method adopted by the petitioners should not be encouraged. We are of the view that this is complete abuse of the process of law. In fact, the petitioners having failed to obtain tender have taken the recourse to process of the writ petition. It is well-settled that no relief can be granted where petitioner does not come with clean hand. We have also considered the records of the case and have found that petitioners' firm has already been issued a show cause notice for black listing. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the respondent-Cantonment Board was quite justified in not issuing tender form to the writ petitioners' firm against which several allegations were made and a show cause notice was issued for black listing. It is also well-settled that a writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine which suffers from suppression of material facts. Considering all aspects of the matter, we are of the view that such type of litigants should not be encouraged by granting any relief particularly in view of the facts and circumstances involved herein. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the writ petitioners.

(3.) Accordingly, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.