1. ' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.---This petition is directed against the order dated 17-8-1992 passed by learned Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue, Sindh Hyderabad who vide the said order dismissed the appeal of one Khalil Ahmed and upheld the order passed by Additional Commissioner-II Hyderabad. The petitioner has, inter alia, prayed that the impugned order be declared void and without lawful authority.
2. ' Precisely the facts of the case are that both the petitioners along with respondent No,1 were granted land by Colonization Officer Sukkur Barrage Hyderabad, vide order dated 20-10-1991. The grant in favour of grantee Habib Ahmed was challenged by one of the petitioners Khalil Ahmed before the Additional Commissioner-II Hyderabad, who dismissed the appeal. The said order was assailed before the Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue Sindh, Hyderahad, who passed the impugned order.
3. ' We have heard Mr. D.M. Lohano, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ghulam Rasool Qureshi, learned counsel for respondent No,1. Mr. Masood A. Noorani, learned Additional A.-G., advanced arguments on behalf of the Provincial Government.
4. ' During the arguments it was pointed out to us that after passing of the impugned order a Review Application was filed by the petitioners before the same authority under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, whereupon an order was passed and the relief claimed by the petitioners in this petition was granted inasmuch as that in review the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner Mirpurkhas were set-aside. It was further pointed out that the factum with regard to the filing of Review Application was neither disclosed in the petition nor the copy of the order passed thereon was annexed. Mr. D.M. Lohano, learned r counsel for the petitioners candidly admitted the above position.
5. It need not be emphasized that the relief claimed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is a discretionary relief and could not be granted as a matter of right. More particularly a petitioner renders himself disentitled, if in case he approaches the Court with unclean hands.
6. ' Since the petitioner concealed the material facts, and came to the Court with soiled hands, his petition is bound to fail.
7. ' We do not see any straightforward justification to interfere in the matter by exercising Constitutional jurisdiction.
8. ' For the above reasons the petition is dismissed along with the listed application.