16.04.2025 Item No.14 Ct. No.01 RP/SM FMA 606 of 2025 With IA No.CAN 1 of 2025 Debasis Mukherjee Vs. The General Manager and Central Public Information Officer, Vigilance Department, IDBI Bank Ltd. & Ors. Mr. Partha Sarathi Das Ms. Shanta Sarkar ….For Appellant Mr. Ranjay Mitra ….For Respondent 1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 03.09.2024 passed in WPA 13327 of 2021. Learned Single Bench has disposed of the writ petition by placing on record the communication sent by the respondent bank dated 27th November, 2020 along with annexures, which was handed over to the learned advocate for the appellant when the writ petition was heard. The instruction forwarded by the bank was also taken on record. 2. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the instruction was not handed over to him. A copy of the said instruction is handed over to the learned advocate for the appellant today, which is placed on record. 3. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the appellant is guilty of not disclosing filing of an earlier petition before this Court being WP 24592 (W) of 2016 concerning his promotion and other 2 documents incidental and related thereto. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 7th March, 2017 for several reasons, more particularly, holding that the writ petition is not maintainable after an inordinate delay of eight years. The appellant carried the matter in appeal before the Division Bench in MAT 706 of 2017, which was dismissed by judgment dated 5th December, 2017. This fact has also not been disclosed by the appellant in the present proceeding nor in the writ petition. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that these are not relatable to the present issue. 5. The appellant having approached this Court earlier in a matter concerning his promotion etc. has a duty to disclose earlier proceedings and orders passed therein. Therefore, this is a good ground for dismissing the writ petition on account of suppression of material fact. However, the learned Single Bench left it open for the appellant to approach the competent forum for relief. We do not propose to interfere with this observation. Accordingly, the appeal and connected application fail and the same are dismissed. [T.S. SIVAGNANAM] CHIEF JUSTICE [CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.] 3