Court observed that ; any party who approaches the court seeking a prerogative writ in extraordinary writ jurisdiction, must come with clean hands. The least that is expected of a petitioner is that he would not misstate or misrepresent or suppress material facts or indulge in suppressio veri. The petition should reveal utmost good faith. The petitioner must ensure that every statement made in the petition, which is a sworn statement, is correct and honest. In case a party breaches this basic obligation, the court is duty-bound to dismiss the petition to ensure that the process of court is not abused by dishonest litigants.

Court held that  it was the responsibility of the petitioner to ensure that every material statement of fact stated in the petition as filed was correct and there was no suppression of material fact relating to the proceedings. The facts were only known to the petitioner and therefore, it was his obligation to ensure that the facts were correctly represented in the petition. The petitioner stated that it was a mistake on its part while drafting the petition and the word “whatsoever” was meant to convey that “no effective opportunity of hearing was given”. The plain reading of the above words in the petition seemed to suggest by use of the word” whatsoever” that no hearing was ever granted. The submission of the petitioner that even the order did not mention grant of any personal hearing to it did not absolve it from stating all the facts fully and truly, including the fact that a hearing howsoever inadequate was given to it. The fact of hearing being granted was now admitted even by the assessee after the note sheet was produced. Besides stating in the petition that no hearing was given, no mention of meeting the Deputy Commissioner with regard to the proceedings was even mentioned. The only thing in support of the petitioner was that when the suppression was seen in the context of the fact, that at no time did the petitioner seek to obtain any interim relief on the basis of the averment without notice to the other side, it could be suggestive of a mistake. Therefore, the suppression might have been on account of mistake as it was unlikely to be made deliberately as it would have stood exposed on the other side having notice of it. Admittedly, the assessee had moved the court after notice to the respondents. The petitioner was allowed to withdraw the petition and granted liberty to file a fresh petition on payment of cost of Rs. 75,000.