' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the and d order dated 29-6-1995 delivered by learned Judges of the Sindh High Court, whereby, Constitutional Petition filed by the petitioner bearing number D-57 of 1995 was dismissed. Brief facts giving rise to the institution of this petition as well as in the petition in Sindh High Court are as under:- ' Petitioner a Zimindar entered into a contract with a statutory body known as Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organization (S.A.S.O.) for the purchase of fertilizer on credit. Credit facility was extended to the petitioner for the purchase of 4500 bags of D.A.P. Worth Rs,9,13,500, 1800 bags D.A.P. (old) and 2700 bags S.O.P. (old) worth Rs,5,94,200. Petitioner executed an agreement and also furnished guarantees, and thus, the petitioner was supplied 8244 bags of fertilizers by Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organization. According to the Organization, at present Rs,15,08,332 are due from the petitioner to the Organization. It may be stated here that the petitioner also executed two promissory notes for a sum of Rs,5,95,900 and an other for a sum of Rs,10,23,932. Towards the discharge of his liability, petitioner issued two cheques dated 24-7-1991 for a sum of Rs,5,95,900 and dated 21-8-1991 for a sum of Rs,9,13,568. These bogus cheques were subsequently dishonoured. Petitioner then deposited an amount of Rs,5000 on 27-10-1993 and Rs,43,000 on 22-11- 1993 in the account of the Organization. Repeated demands were made by the Organization for the payment of the price of the fertilizer, but-the petitioner avoided to pay the aforesaid amount of the Organization. Outstanding dues of the Organization are recoverable as arrears of land revenue under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, therefore, a notice was issued under section 81 of the aforesaid Act on 4-9-1994 requiring the petitioner to deposit the outstanding amount within 15- days failing which, proceedings under section 82 of the afore referred Act, were to be initiated against the petitioner, but despite this notice, petitioner failed to pay the dues to the Organization.
Another Notice under section 82 of the aforementioned Act was served upon the petitioner on 19- 12-1994 calling upon the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs,22,03,636 including the mark up, but the petitioner turned a deaf ear, and thus, proceedings of recovery of said dues as arrears of land revenue were initiated. The matter was also reported, to the Federal Investigating Agency for appropriate action against the petitioner for having issued bogus cheques, referred to above, fraudulently.
2. Petitioner in the first instance filed a Constitutional Petition bearing No,D-1202 of 1994 challenging the process of recovery initiated against him, but the same was withdrawn on 21-3-1995. A second Petition bearing No,57-D of 1995 was filed against the process of recovery, but in the body of this petition, petitioner concealed the fact of having instituted an earlier Petition bearing No,1202-D of 1994. Yet an other Petition was also filed by petitioner bearing No,103-D of 1995 which was disposed of on the statement made by an Assistant Advocate-General to the effect that action against the petitioner was being taken for the recovery of dues under section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, and no recovery proceedings otherwise than in accordance with law will be taken against the petitioner. In Petition D-57 of 1995 which is the subject matter of this petition the institution of Petition 1202-D of 1994 and its withdrawal and the institution of Petition bearing No,103-D of 1995 and its disposal were not mentioned. Learned Judges of the Sindh High Court made a probe into these facts, and came to the conclusion, that the explanation of the petitioner in this behalf was vague and illusory and the facts had been deliberately concealed. Petitioner was also asked to file an affidavit, and although, it was filed but the copy thereof was not supplied to the respondents' side. Learned Judges of the Sindh High Court rightly observed that nature of relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan was equitable in nature, and the discretion always vests in the High Court to deny the same or to accord it depending always on a judicious exercise of discretion calculated to secure. The ends of justice but never to perpetuate injustice. It is further apt to mention that when an equitable relief is sought, person seeking the same must come with clean hands. If he is himself guilty of inequitous conduct, the relief as a rule is to be denied.
Learned Judges of the Sindh High Court while propounding these principles rightly placed reliance upon Muhammad Umer Saeed v. Government of West Pakistan 1969 SCMR 141, 2) Salma Jawaid w S.M. Arshad PLD 1983 Karachi 303 and 3) Abdul Maroof Khan Afridi v. Karachi Development Authority 1990 MLD 2252.
3. Having considered the entire controversy, and having heard the learned counsel at length, we are of the view that the dismissal of the petition on this ground was a right course of action adopted by the Sindh High Court. However, before parting with this judgment, even on merits, petitioner has no case, inasmuch as, petitioner has placed reliance upon the Notification issued by Provincial Government of Sindh suspending the 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, upto 29-8-1993) and the suspension period was further extended upto 29-8-1994 and the period of recovery of Kharif 1992-93 was also suspended upto 31-1-1995. This Notification is not at all applicable to the Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organization, a statutory body, otherwise, the Government of Sindh would have mentioned the same in the Notification as was done in the cases of Cooperative Societies. Furthermore, assuming without conceding, even then, the period of suspension has come to an end. In this view of the matter, the. Notification relied upon by the petitioner has no bearing upon the controversy on the other hand, in our view, petitioner has deliberately avoided to pay the amounts due to him, and had issued bogus cheques. Therefore, we do not find any merits in this petition, and the same is hereby dismissed.