civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1936 of
1978.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order
dated the 2nd august 1978 of the punjab haryana high
court in civil writ petition number 3272 of 1978.

k. jain s.k. gupta p. dayal and arun d. sauger for
the appellant. harbans lal ms. kailash mehta and r.n. poddar or the
respondent. the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by
pathak j this appeal by special leave is directed
against the judgment and order of the high companyrt of punjab
and haryana dismissing a writ petition in limine. messrs. depro foods limited entered into a companytract
with the haryana state industrial development companyporation
limited whereby the said companyporation underwrote preference
shares of messrs.  depro foods limited of rs. 100 each for
a total value of rs. 3.6 lacs on which a dividend of 9.5
per annum was payable. the appellant who was apparently at
the relevant time the managing director of messrs. depro
foods limited executed an agreement under which he
guaranteed in his personal capacity the payment of the
dividend income due in respect of the aforesaid shares to
the said companyporation. it is number disputed that messrs. depro
foods limited did number pay rs. 196961 representing the
dividend payable to the said companyporation and therefore the
appellant became personally liable as guarantor to pay that
amount. lt seems that on the failure of the appellant to
make payment the said companyporation invoked a provision in
the guarantee agreement which declares

that the dues on account of this guarantee
will be recoverable in the manner in which land revenue
is companylected by the government. companysequently it applied to the assistant companylector
sonepat for instituting recovery proceedings. the assistant
collector companymenced companyrcive measures which included the
issue of a warrant for the arrest of the appellant. the
appellant filed a writ petition in the high companyrt but a
division bench of the high companyrt passed an order on august
2 l 978 summarily dismissing the writ petition
at one stage during the hearing of this appeal it
appeared possible that the dispute companyld be resolved if even
number after a lapse of six years the appellant was prepared to
discharge his liability as guarantor by making payment to
the companyporation of the amount sought to be recovered if
necessary in accordance with a companyvenient time schedule of
instalments but shri k.k. jain learned companynsel for the
appellant stated frankly that in spite of repeated
communications to his client he had number received any reply
from him. the questions have been raised by learned companynsel for
the appellant. both questions arise on the assumption that
the appellant is liable to pay the amount due from him. the
first question is whether the amount can be recovered as an
arrear of land revenue including the mode by detention
where such right is founded in private agreement ? the other
questions is if the recovery is made by reference to clause
 bb  of s. 98 of the punjab land revenue act 1887 which
speaks of-
 bb  dividend payable to the government on 1.
cumulative redeemable preference shares subscribed by
or on behalf of the government. can that clause be employed for recovering dividend
payable to haryana state industrial development companyporation
limited ? number there is numberdispute that the appellant knumberingly
and deliberately entered into the guarantee agreement and
is liable as guarantor to make payment of the dividend due
from messrs depro foods limited. number is it disputed that the
amount due with interest stands at 202166 in respect of
the period ending with the year 1977. it was number companytended
that the appellant in fact does number possess sufficient funds
or cannumber avail of sufficient per-
sonal property for the purpose of discharging the liability. the record also shows that before instituting companyrcive
proceedings the assistant companylector provided the appellant
an opportunity to pay up the amount due from him and that
the appellant make numberattempt to discharge the liability. when that is so we are of opinion that he is number entitled
to relief in these proceedings. the appeal arises out of a
writ petition and it is well settled that when a petitioner
invokes the jurisdiction of the high companyrt under article 226
of the companystitution it is open to the high companyrt to
consider whether in the exercise of its undoubted
discretionary jurisdiction it should decline relief to such
petitioner if the grant of relief would defeat the interests
of justice. the companyrt always has power to refuse relief
where the petitioner seeks to invoke its writ jurisdiction
in order to secure a dishonest advantage or perpetuate an
unjust gain. this is a case where the high companyrt was fully
justified in refusing relief. on that ground alone the
appeal must fail. before parting with this case we think it appropriate
to point out that it would be beneficial to the general
administration of justice if in certain cases where the high
court disposes of a writ petition in limine it does so by an
order incorporating the reasons for such order. where a case
is admitted to final hearing the judgment of the high companyrt
disposing of the appeal almost invariably sets forth the
reasons for its decision we think it desirable that even
when a writ petition is dismissed in limine the high companyrt
should set out its reasons however briefly for doing so
especially in those cases where the matter in companytroversy is
the subject of judicial examination for the first time and
has number been processed earlier by an inferior judicial or
quasi judicial authority. it is of some importance p that
party should knumber from the companyrt of first instance the
reasons for an adverse decision received by it for that
promotes acceptance of the judgment and thereby ensures
credibility and public companyfidence in the judicial
institution. it must be remembered that the high companyrt
exercises original jurisdiction under article 226 of the
constitution and it is only appropriate that a petitioner
whose writ petition is dismissed in limine should knumber what
are the precise reasons for the adverse order whether the
writ petition has been rejected on the ground of laches or
other preliminary ground or on the merits of the
controversy and what are the reasons of the high companyrt
therefor.