BRIJ SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite being fully aware that there is an alternative remedy of appeal provided under Section 21 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, the Petitioner has made an averment that there is no alternative remedy of appeal or revision except to approach this Court. Once the writ petition was going to be dismissed, the counsel prayed for permission to withdraw the same to file an appeal. The Petitioner, thus, has not approached this Court with clean hands.

(2.) It is, thus, clear that the Petitioner was more than well aware of the fact that he has a remedy of filing appeal but still chose to make an averment saying that he has no such remedy available to him. The writ petition was not likely to be heard or entertained if the Petitioner had disclosed the correct position by making proper averment in this regard. There is, thus, no manner of doubt that these averments were deliberately and calculatedly made to keep the writ Court in dark with regard to material facts and attempt was made to procure an order/interim order and ultimately the relief in the writ petition. It is, thus, seen that there has been a calculated attempt to suppress the material facts, which if disclosed would have disentitled the Petitioner to avail this extra ordinary remedy. The Court would generally refuse to grant writ without going into merit if it is found that there has been any suppression of material facts.

(3.) Since the Petitioner is seeking permission to withdraw this writ petition, the said permission is granted with liberty to have his alternative remedy but this shall be subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/-as costs for making an attempt to provide misleading information. The costs shall be deposited in the accounts of legal Services Authority, U.T., Chandigarh. The appeal of the Petitioner shall be entertained by the authorities only once he shows the receipt of deposit of this costs.