MOHD SAFEEQ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Sunil Kumar Singh counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

(2.) THE petitioner was granted a contract for vehicle stand? parking fee to the West gate of Taj Mahal, city Agra for the year 2011-12 for an amount of Rs. 1,97,00,000.00 and petitioner deposited 25% of the amount and rest of the amount was to be deposited? in ten equal installments.? An accident took place on 4.3.2010 in which the petitioner? claims to have sustained injuries.? Petitioner's case is that he was surprised after receiving the recovery certificate on 20.7.2012 issued for depositing Rs. 59,10,000.00 as arrear of land revenue. Petitioner has come up in the writ petition praying for quashing the recovery certificate. Petitioner's case is that the respondent cannot recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. When the writ petition was taken on 13.8.2012, learned counsel for the respondent raised an objection that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition as writ petition no. 19758 of 2012 which was disposed of on 25.4.2012 permitting the petitioner to deposit the entire outstanding amount in three equal? monthly installments.? It is submitted that the said writ petition was filed when a notice for recovery? was issued to the petitioner.? It is submitted that the petitioner concealed filing of the? aforesaid first writ petition and has not come to this court with clean hands and the writ petition be dismissed on this? ground alone. The matter was heard on 31.8.2012 and petitioner was allowed to file supplementary affidavit explaining his conduct.? A supplementary affidavit has been filed today which is taken on record.? In the supplementary affidavit no explanation has been given as to why, petitioner did not disclose the filing of the earlier writ petition as writ petition no. 19758 of 2012.? It has been stated that the amount cannot be recovered as arrear of land revenue.?

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier writ petition was filed against the notice and the present writ petition has been filed against the citation? and the petitioner is challenging the power of Development Authority to recover the dues as? arrears of land revenue. ? We have? considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is no denial in the writ petition regarding taking of the contract and the facts that the amount is due against the petitioner.? The petitioner filed earlier writ petition and undertook to make the payment in installments for which time was allowed.? The said writ petition was disposed of by this court on 25.4.2012.? The present writ petition has been filed in this court on 23.8.2012 challenging the citation.? In this writ petition there is no mention? of the first writ petition.? Petitioner? in the supplementary affidavit has also not explained as in what circumstances the? mention of the earlier writ petition was not made in this writ petition.? For invoking the the jurisdiction. The Petitioner has to come up with clean hands. The discretionary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to? be exercised in favour of a person who does not come up with clean hands,? as laid down? by the Full Bench by this Court? in AIR 1951 All (F.B) 746; Asiatic Engineering Company Vs Achhra Ram and others. We are of the view that petitioner is not entitled for any relief.? The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground? that the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hand.? The writ petition is dismissed.