Union of India v. Shantiranjan Sarkar, (2009) 3 SCC 90 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 575 at page 92
8.
Before adverting to the contentions raised before us by the learned
counsel for the parties, we may notice that the appellants suppressed a
material fact. It appears that the fact that the High Court had recalled
its earlier order dated 9-7-2004 by an order dated 30-11-2004 had not
been mentioned in the list of dates. This Court, therefore, must have
proceeded on the basis that the impugned order was passed on a review
application and not in the original writ proceedings. We do not find
appropriate words to deprecate such a practice and that too by the Union
of India. We should have dismissed the special leave petition on this
ground alone. Let us, however, also consider the merit of the matter.
