B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. The petitioner has filed an application to withdraw the instant petition filed by her before the principal seat of this Court. The other side has raised serious objections and opposed the said application.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this application are that the petitioner, who is the Chair-person of Municipal Council, Bhilwara, had challenged the order of suspension passed by the State Government from the Chair-person ship and Membership of the Municipal Council. Bhilwara on various grounds. The writ petition was admitted by this Court vide order dated 1 -9-1998. However, this Court rejected the application for interim relief in spite of the fact that all possible arguments had been made on her behalf including the allegations of mala fide against Shri Ramrich Pal Nuval, respondent No. 2 presently the M.L. A. from Bhilwara Constituency and regarding the arbitrary exercise of power by the State Government. By a speaking and reasoned order, the prayer for grant of interim relief was rejected though the Court directed to list the matter for final hearing on 16-9-1998.

3. Petitioner preferred the present application for withdrawal of the instant writ petition on 17-9-98 on the ground that she had been advised to file a writ petition at Jaipur Bench of this Court challenging, inter alia, the validity of the provisions of Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") and. also, the same impugned order of suspension and, thus, she prayed that she may be permitted to withdraw the instant writ petition with permission to pursue the writ petition already filed by her before the Jaipur Bench. As the application for withdrawal was not supported by an affidavit this Court, vide order dated 8-10-98 directed the petitioner to file an affidavit in support of the application and, also, to disclose whether she had disclosed the factum of pendency of the instant writ petition before the main seat while filing the writ petition before the Jaipur Bench. Petitioner filed an affidavit on 9-10-98 before this Court stating that the factum of pendency of the writ petition had not been disclosed in the writ petition filed at Jaipur Bench and it was not so disclosed as the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that it was not necessary as the validity of the provisions of Section 63(4) of the Act has been challenged therein. The State Govenment has filed reply to the said writ petition and taken a serious objection regarding suppression of the material fact before the Jaipur Bench and that writ petition is still pending for hearing.

4. Heard Mr. M. Section Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Vineet Kothari, learned counsel for respondentNo. 2 Mr. Ramrich Pal Nuval, M.L.A.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of (he petitioner that petitioners right to withdraw the writ petition is absolute and the Court cannot force a party to proceed with the case. The submission seems to be very innocuous and attractive but has no application in a case where petitioner prays for withdrawal with liberty to file a successive petition. In such a case the Court has to examine whether by seeking such permission for withdrawal, petitioner is trying to defeat the right/interest which has accrued in favour of the respondent(s) or trying to overreach the Court or his/her conduct tantamounts to abuse of process of the Court. The instant application is not for a mere withdrawal. The application has been made specifically to permit the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue the remedy before the Jaipur Bench. Petitioner approached this Court and could not succeed to get the interim order. Any matter challenging the impugned order or validity of a provision of any statute, can be filed before the principal seat of this Court. If petitioner wanted to challenge the validity of a statutory provision, there was no bar for her to amend the instant writ petition challenging the validity of the statutory provisons or to apply for permission to withdraw the instant writ petition and then to challenge the impugned order before this principal seat or before the Jaipur Bench of this Court. The prayer for interim relief has been rejected by this Bench by a speaking and reasoned order and petitioner filed the subsequent writ petition in Jaipur Bench without disclosing the factum of pendency of the instant writ petition, it amounts to abuse of process of the Court and once the petitioner has approached this Court first, taking any subsequent step, i.e., instituting the petition before the Jaipur Bench without discussing the fact-situation correctly, amounts to playing fraud upon this Bench. The application has been filed with ulterior motive. The petitioner lacks bonafide in applying for withdrawal of the instant writ petition. She has suppressed the material fact before the Jaipur Bench regarding pendency of the instant writ petition and she is guilty of further suppressing the material fact before this Court while moving this application by not disclosing that she had suppressed this material fact before the Jaipur Bench.

6. The Rajasthan High Court Rules mandatorily requires that every application filed before the Court must be supported by an affidavit. Petitioner did not file an affidavit in support of the application to withdraw the writ petition and she had subsequently filed the affidavit only in pursuance of the order of the Court dated 8-10-1998. This makes it abundantly clear that petitioner is trying to play hide and seek with the Court and has not approached this Court with clean hands. Every litigant, who approaches the Court, must come forward not only with clean hands but with clean mind, clean heart and with clean objective. (Vide The Ramjas Foundation and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. and another Vs. Government of Karnataka and another, and K.R. Srinivas Vs. R.M. Premchand and Others,

7. The writ Court is under a solemn duty, as a custodian of the Constitution and law to maintain the social balance by interfering, where necessary, for the sake of justice and refusing the interference where it is against social interest and public good" as explained by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Prabhu, In Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and another, the Apex Court has observed as under :

"The Court of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, must so act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and the Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith, as far as it lies within (heir power. Equity is always known to prevent the law from crafty evasion and subtleties invented to evade law."

8. Similarly, in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, the Supreme Court has observed that the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and one, who approaches the Court, must come with clean hands as "unscrupulous persons from all walks of life, find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gain indefinitely."

9. A party cannot be permitted to file successive writ petitions for the same cause of action and that too without disclosing the pendency of the earlier writ petition as it amounts to sheer abuse of the process of the Court. A proceeding being filed for a collateral purpose or a spurious claim may, also, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and in such a case the Court must come with a very heavy hand on a litigant who has the audacity to abuse the process of the Court. (Vide K.K. Modi Vs. K.N. Modi and Others,

10. In Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao Vs. K.Parasaran and others, the Apex Court has observed as under :--

"No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a lincence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions."

11. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, allowing the petitioner to withdraw the petition and pursue the remedy before the Jaipur Bench would amount to allowing the petitioner to play fraud upon the Court and, therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.

12. I find no force in the argument raised by Mr. Singhvi that on the analogy of principle enshrined in Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition and pursue the remedy before the Jaipur Bench. No rule of law can permit a person to play fraud upon the Court and i f it lacks bona fides, the Court must not have any hesitation in rejecting and disapporving such an action. If all the elaborate and technical rules of Court were to be imported from Section 141 of the CPC into the writ proceedings, the very purpose is likely to be defeated by proceeding being delayed. Explanation to Section 141, CPC provides for non-application of the provisions of the CPC in writ proceedings though the principle enshrined therein may be made applicable in an appropriate case. Court should not allow to withdraw a petition if it prejudices the defendant/respondent or merely because the petitioner does not want to proceed with the case and wants to achieve an ulterior goal by adopting an oblique method. It is not a kind of the cases where withdrawal is being prayed on the ground of formal defect in the forum. In fact it is to perpetrate the fraud already played upon the Court for the reason that the petitioner could not succeed to get the interim order from this Bench.

13. Petitioner has raised serious allegations of mala fides against the respondent No. 2 and he has filed the reply. He has not been arrayed as respondent/party in the petition filed before the Jaipur Bench. He is a member of the Legislative Assembly representing Bhilwara Constituency. Dragging him to the Court before the principal seal and not impleading him before the Jaipur Bench show the craftmanship of the petitioner to evade the process of the Court before the principal scat. Mr. Singhvi has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shaik Hussain and Sons Vs. M.G. Kannaiah and Another, wherein the Apex Court has held that the High Court could have considered the application for withdrawal to avoid public inconvenience. The facts of the said case were clearly distinguishable as the said case was only against the formal authority like the Regional Transport Authority. Here is a case where the petitioner is trying to settle her political rivalries by using this Court as a forum.

14. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not in the interest of justice to allow the petitioner to withdraw the petition and pursue the remedy before the Jaipur Bench.

Hence, the application is rejected.