Hari Narain v. Badri Das, (1964) 2 SCR 203 at page No. 209 where Gajendragadkar, J., speaking for this Court said :
“In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading”.
In that case, this Court revoked the grant of special leave despite the fact that Mr. Setalvad, who had argued the special leave petition at the time of its grant, had stated that, so far as he recollected, the special leave was not granted on the ground on which misrepresentation by his client had taken place.
The last mentioned case was cited with approval in Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi v. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody, (1964) 3 SCR 480 at pages 488 and 493 where Sarkar and Shah JJ. pointed out :
“Exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution is discretionary: it is exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases, when a substantial question of Law falls to be determined or where it appears to the Court that interference by this Court is necessary to remedy serious injustice. A party who approaches this Court invoking the exercise of this overriding discretion of the Court must come with clean hands. If there appears on his part any attempt to overreach or mislead the Court by false or untrue statements or by withholding true information which would have a bearing on the question of exercise of the discretion, the Court would be justified in refusing to exercise the discretion or if the discretion has been exercised, in revoking the leave to appeal granted even at the time of hearing of appeal”.
And, Hidayatullah J., said (at pages 493-494) there:
“The powers exercisable by this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution are not in the nature of a general appeal. They unable this Court to interfere in cases where an irreparable injury has been caused by reason of a miscarriage of Justice due to a gross neglect of Law or procedure or otherwise and there is no other adequate remedy. The article is hardly meant to afford relief in a case of this type where a party is in default of rent because he withdrew a deposit lying in court but who cannot, on the record of the case, be shown to have withdrawn the amount. If the petition had mentioned that the decision of the appeal court had proceeded on the ground that the amount was taken out, it is difficult to imagine that this Court would have given special leave to decide a question of discretion”.
In a petition under Article 136, the applicant should state all material facts which have a bearing on the question of the exercise of the discretion, correctly. And, if any statement is made in the petition which has a bearing on its maintainability, and which is calculated or likely to mislead, the court would revoke the order granting special leave (see the decision in Rajabhai Abdul Rehman v. Vasudev Dhanjibhai (1964) 3 SCR 480 .
In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading.
Application for Revocation of Special Leave to Appeal