Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38297-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41592 of 2024 Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Keshari Respondent :- Indian Oil Corporation Limited And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Sharma,Rajneesh Sharma,Virendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Devi Shanker Shukla Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Devi Shanker Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner has prayed for the following substantial reliefs: "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 09.10.2024 passed by respondent no.3 by which rejected the claim of petitioner for Retail Outlet dealership as per Clause 22 of the Dealer Selection Brochure, 2023. (Annexure No.1 of the writ petition). ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to proceed with selection of the petitioner's and issue Letter of Intent to the petitioner in pursuance of his candidature for the advertised location being "Between KM Stone 44 and 56 on National Highway 135C." 3. Upon a perusal of the impugned order dated October 9, 2024, it is clear that the respondent No.4 made an application to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") that she had not given any consent/affidavit as per Appendix-III to the selected candidate Prashant Kumar Keshari, the petitioner herein and that she had not signed the consent application. This fact itself indicates that the affidavit that had been filed by the petitioner before the Corporation on an earlier date was a fabricated document. This particular fact has also been corroborated by the Corporation, who had sent an affidavit to the notary officer for verification, who, in turn, has specifically stated that no such notary has been made by him. 4. Before this Court, the respondent No.4 has now appeared through counsel and filed a counter affidavit stating that she now has no dispute with the petitioner and that she is willing to give consent in support of the petitioner and would not dispute the allotment of retail outlet dealership in the name of the petitioner. 5. It is to be noted that in the earlier round of litigation being Writ- C No.22511 of 2024, this Court, vide order dated September 9, 2024, had directed the Corporation to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also take consent of respondent No.4. From the facts noted above, it is clear that subsequent to passing of the order by this Court, respondent No.4 appeared before the Corporation on September 26, 2024 and categorically stated that the affidavit dated October 13, 2023 was neither made by her nor had she given any affidavit. The impugned order records consistent stand of the respondent No.4 in that direction. 6. It now appears that the petitioner and the respondent No.4 have resolved the dispute between them. It is to be noted that a writ of mandamus should only be issued when the petitioner comes to the Court with clean hands. Principles of uberrima fides, which means utmost good faith, have to be followed while approaching the Writ Court for seeking any relief. 7. The factual matrix clearly indicates that the petitioner on an earlier occasion had produced false documents before the Corporation. In spite of the same, an opportunity was granted by this Court and even then, when respondent No.4 appeared before the Corporation, she maintained her stand regarding the past event of not giving of consent but stated that she has now belatedly given her consent. Presently, respondent No.4 appears to have resolved the dispute with the petitioner and has filed her consent before this Court. 8. We are not in favour of this hop, skip and jump policy being followed by the petitioner and the respondent No.4. Both the parties cannot be allowed to change their stance at the drop of a hat. Furthermore, it is clear that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands, and therefore, we see no reason to intervene in the impugned order passed by the Corporation, which is based on documents produced before it. 9. It may further be noted that Clause 22 of the Dealers Selection Brochure, 2023 specifically deals with 'False Information'. If the applicant provides false information, the application can be rejected on this ground itself. The application of the petitioner is, therefore, liable to be rejected and the same has been done by the authority 10. In light of the same, we are duty bound not to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner who has not come to this Court with clean hands as he had filed false documents before the authorities. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Kuldeep (Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) Digitally signed by :- KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad