1. ' WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---This petition has proceeded on the ground that the petitioner was supplied fertilizer on credit by the Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organization (SASO) in the year, 1990, but recoveries of the dues stood suspended from time to time and lastly under the Notification dated 22-8-1994, which is as under:- "NOTIFICATION.
2. ' No, D (EG1)/94/ Asstt.II/357/ Hyderabad, dated 22-8-1994.
3. ' Whereas the Government of Sindh in the Revenue Department vide Notification No, D(EG1)/92/307/Asstt.I, dated 30-8-1992 and No,D(EG1)/93/138/Asstt.II dated 2641-1993 was pleased to suspend recovery of all kinds of Provincial Government dues including Provincial Cooperative and Cooperative Societies current/previous for Kharif 1992-93 for one year (i,e, up to 29-8-1993) and then further suspension period was extended up to 29-8-1994.
4. ' Now, the Government of Sindh in the Revenue Department is pleased to extend the suspension period of recovery of the said Government dues (that is Kharif 1992-93) up to 31st January, 1995.
2. However, arrears of Rabi 1992-93 and Kharif/Rabi 1993-94 will be recovered as per schedule.
5. ABDUS SALEEM KHAN, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, REVENUE DEPARTMENT."
6. ' Further, plea in the petition is that the accounts between the petitioner and SA.S.O. Have never been settled and, therefore, there were no settled dues to be recovered, as arrears of land revenue, under section 82 of the W.P. Land Revenue Act, 1967, which is what purports to have been attempted through the notice dated 24-10-1994, questioned in the petition.
7. ' Upon issuance of pre-admission notices the learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh and Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Memon have pointed out that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts and besides has no case on merits. It has been pointed out that the petitioner filed an earlier Constitutional Petition bearing No,D-1202 of 1994 covering, in fact, the same subject-matter which the petitioner withdrew on 21-3-1995. As against this a brazen misstatement was made in the body of this petition to the effect that the petitioner had not filed an "identical petition prior to this in the Honourable Court". This is not all. It has been urged that another Constitutional petition viz. Constitutional Petition No,D-103 of 1995, regarding the self-same recoveries was also brought which stood disposed of on 7-2-1995 upon a statement of the learned AA.-G. That respondents in that petition were only effecting recoveries under section 82 of the Land Revenue Act and that no recoveries shall be made except in due course of law. Disturbed by these avowals, we, on our part, required the petitioner to explain his position through a proper affidavit but such affidavit was not filed for quite sometime, being submitted in Court only on 27-4-1995. What is more, copy of the same has not been supplied to the other side as yet. Such affidavit, accordingly, can be legitimately omitted from consideration: "In any case, what the petitioner says in the affidavit can hardly inspire confidence. According to such version Mr. Noor Muhammad Shaikh, Advocate, was engaged to file C.P. No,D-1202/94 but he suffered a heart attack and expressed his inability to file the same. Yet, somehow the clerk of Mr. Noor Muhammad Shaikh allegedly asked the petitioner to come to the High Court and obtained his signatures but told him that the case was not being entertained and, therefore, the petitioner may engage another Advocate. Such being the case Mr. Gul Bahar Korai, the petitioner's- present counsel, is stated to have been engaged and this petition was filed on 15-1-1995, the petitioner allegedly never knowing that C.P.No,D-1202 of 1994 had already been filed. Calling the file of C.P.
8. No,D-1202 of 1994 we have found that the same was submitted on 19-12-1994, after due verification on the same date by the petitioner, who was duly identified by Mr. Noor Muhammad Shaikh, Advocate. There is also a supporting affidavit of the petitioner in identical terms. On 21-12-1994, the petition was placed in Court for orders and, Mr. Noor Muhammad Shaikh himself appearing for the petitioner, notices on the petition were directed to be issued. Subsequently, on 30-1-1995, Mr. Noor Muhammad submitted a statement, seeking withdrawal of the petition. Meanwhile, comments had already been filed by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 on 29-1-1995. On 21-3-1995 the statement of withdrawal dated 30-1-1995 was placed for orders and Mr. Khawand Bux Mahar appeared, holding brief for Mr. Noor Muhammad Shaikh, Advocate. Such resulted in the acceptance of the statement and dismissal of the petition as withdrawn. These facts would clearly show that the petitioner has twisted the facts with regard to the institution of C.P.No,D-1202/94 in his abovesaid affidavit. The affidavit, which could not be considered in view of its belated submission and non-supply of copy to the other side is, therefore, also discarded from consideration having no merit whatever.
9. It is in these circumstances that we have to view the petitioner's case. There is little doubt that Constitutional relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is relief of an equitable nature, discretion always lying with the High Court to deny or accord it, depending always on a judicious exercise of discretion, calculated to secure advancement of justice but never to perpetuate injustice. Where an equitable remedy is sought and the concerned person comes to Court with unclean hands, having been himself guilty of an inequitous conduct, relief as a rule is to be denied, irrespective of merits of the controversy. The patent and unexplained misstatement regarding the institution of an earlier Constitutional petition virtually on the same parties is a matter of serious concern. Apart from there having been a requirement of express mention upon established principles, there are also mandatory instructions of an administrative nature, requiring such necessary details to be duly categorized. Thus, on this short ground alone, the petition calls for dismissal, reliance inter alia being placed on Muhammad Umer Saeed v. Government of West Pakistan 1969 SCMR 141, Salma Jawaid v. S.M. Arshad, PLD 1983 Karachi 303 and Abdul Maroof Khan Afridi v. Karachi Development Authority, 1990 MLD 2252. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
10. Before parting with the case, we would, however, like to mention that the petitioner, in truth, has no case even on merits. Thus, the above notification did not extend to autonomous institutions and agencies functioning in the Province of Sindh even though such institutions or agencies have an administrative nexus with the Provincial Government. SA.S.O. Is a statutory body constituted under a provincial enactment namely, The Sindh, Agricultural Supplies Organization Act, X of 1973, and is not a mere department of the Provincial Government. Besides, wherever the authority issuing the above reproduced notification required outside agencies to be covered by the suspension brought about by the notification express mention thereof has been made which is to be extent of Provincial cooperative societies only. Thus, there was no moratorium against SASO recoveries.
11. Needless to add that even if there was one such expired on 31-1-1995 and none subsists now. Last, but not the least, C.P.No, D-103 of 1995, as reflected above, connected with the same recovery already stands disposed of attracting the rule of res judicata and barring the maintainability of this petition.
12. ' At any event, the petitioner's plea of accounts remaining unsettled in itself is illusory because when we asked Mr. Korai whether the petitioner had addressed any communication to SASO requiring them to sort out and settle accounts with him, the answer was in the negative. In the matter of such claims, where disputed, the normal course for the disputant always is to expressly and cogently bring the &grievance to the notice of the concerned institution/agency and failing there the question may appropriately be apprised to the Recovery Officer for him to satisfy the requirements of law, if any. Surely, in this case where dues of millions were involved one would not have fought shy of even writing a letter of remonstrance against allegedly unwarranted and illegal recoveries. The fact that this was not done may itself be suggestive of the further fact that the dues claimed were, in fact, properly claimed.
13. ' In view of the foregoing, the petition as well as listed application stands dismissed.