Vesta Geetha vs The State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 2179 AP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATE:
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) . e
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY,
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
:PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
WRIT PETITION NO: 15225 OF 2020

 

Between:
Vesta Geetha, D/o Late Vetsa Satyanarayana Murthy, aged about 36 years, Rio 7-1-
. 208/2/1, Balkampet, Ameerpet, Hyderabad
... Petitioner
AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal
Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi,

_ Amaravathi, Guntur District.

2. The Commissioner, Municipal Administration and Urban Development
Department, Gorantla, Guntur, Guntur District.

3. The Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, West Annapurna Nagar,
Il Floor, 4" Lane Extention, Gorantla, Guntur -522 034.

4. The Gommissioner, Vijayawada Municipal corporation Vijayawada, Krishna
District.

5. The Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Vijayawada Municipal Corporation,
Vijayawada, Krishna District.

6. The City Planner, Viiayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna
District.

7. The Assistant Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Patamata,
Circle Il, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

8. Chalasani Siva Nageswara Rao, S/o Ramarao aged about 56 years, R/o
D.No.72-2-4, Milkbooth Street, Patamata, Viiayawada, Krishna District, A.P.

9. Kamineni Sambasiva Rao, S/o Perayya, aged about 57 years, R/o Teja Towers,
Patamata, Vijayawada.

10. Mandava Chilakarani, W/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 47 years, R/o Flat
No, 303, Sri Lakshmi sai Home Apartments, D.No.40-25-17/8A, Netaji Street,
Patamata Lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna District. A.P.

11.Maddukuru Jyothi Rani, W/o Lakshmi Narayana, Aged about 52 years, Blue
Lotus, Hitex, Flat.No.403, Khanamet, Hyderabad, Telangana.

12.Mandava Sri Sravya, D/o Venkateswara Rao aged about 26 years, R/o Flat No.
303, Sri Lakshmi Sai Home Apartments, D.No.40-25-17/8A, Netaji Street,
Patamata lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ALP.

13. Valluru Nagamallika, D/o Nagabhushanam aged about 32 years, 64-9-17,
Chennupati Ramakotaiah Street, Patamata Lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist.
AP.

14. Valluru Vamsi Ramesh, S/o Nagabhushanam aged about 27 years, 64-9-17,
Chennupati Ramakotaiha Street, Patamata Lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist.
AP.

15. Valluru Rajani, W/o Ramesh Babu aged about 49 years, 64- 9-17, Chennupati
Ramakotaiha Street, Patamata Lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. A.P.

16, Valluru Sheethal, D/o Ramesh Babu aged about 30 years, 64-9-17, Chennupati
Ramakotaiha Street, Patamata Lanka, Viiayawada, Krishna Dist. A.P.

17, Valluru Girish Chandra, S/o Ramesh Babu aged about 25 years, 64-9-17,
Chennupati Ramakotaiha Street, Patamata Lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist,
AP,

18. Valluru Chethan Susheel, S/o Ramesh Babu aged about 24 years, 64-9-17,
Chennupati Rarnakotaiha Street, Patamata Lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist.

AP.

19. Mandava Venkateswara Rao, S/o Ramarao, aged about 54 years, R/o Flat No.
303, Sri Lakshmi Sai Home Apartments, D.No.40-25-17/8A, Netaji Street,
Patamata lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna District. A-P.
 

20. Mandava Anirudh, S/o, Venkateswara Rao, aged about 22 years, R/o Flat
No.303, Sri Lakshmi Sai Home Apartments, D.No.40-25-17/8A, Netaji Street,
Patamata lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna District. A.P.

21.M/s Sri Homes, Rep. by its Managing partners 1. Cherukuri Sathish Babu, 2.
Dhulipala Srikanth O/o, 1st Floor, D Address Mall, M.G.Road, Vijayawada -10

.... Respondents

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to
issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus
deciaring the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 in not cancelling the iNegal building
permission granted to respondent Nos. 8 to 20 vide permit No. 1073/0524/
BIVMCIN.1/2018, dated 11-09-2018 by showing my neighbors land Survey Number
404/2A and giving boundaries of petitioner land Survey No. 404/2B which clearly
explain the violations of complying conditions of the permission is illegal, Arbitrary, high
handed and violations of principle of natural justice and consequently direct the
respondents 1 to 7 to cancel the illegal permission permit No. 1073/0524/
B/VMC/N.T/2018 dt.11-09-2018 by considering petitioner representation date 24-02-
2020,

1A NO: 2 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the
personal appearance of the Writ Petitioner along with Aadhar and other authenticated
identification cards, for the purpose of examination as to her identity, before this Hon'ble
Court on the next date of hearing or any other day fixed by this Hon'ble Court, pending
disposal of WP 15225 of 2020, on the file of the High Court.

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit
filed in support thereof and the orders of the High Court, dated 28.08.2020 &
22.01.2021made herein and order dated 03.12.2020 made in |.A.No.2 of 2020, upon
hearing the arguments of Sri P.N.Murthy, Advocate for the Petitioner GP for Municipal
Administration and Urban Development for Respondent Nos 1 to 3, Sri M. Manohar
Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 7 and Sri M.RLK. Chakravarthy, Advocate for
Respondent No.8, the Court made the following.

ORDER:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

UWS Withdrawal Memo.(&s)No. 15529 of 2021 in oo W.P.No.15225 of 2020

ORDER :

In this writ petition, the "petitioner" filed a memo seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition and also seeking liberty to pursue other remedies alleging that the respondents are obstructing her from appearing in Court etc. Some of the respondents have strongly objected to the

withdrawal,

In reply to this memo, the 18 respondent filed a reply memo. Respondent Nos.8,10,14,15 and 17 also filed another memo with case law. They deny any obstruction of the present petitioner. They strongly object to the memo filed and pray the

Court to reject this request for the reasons mentioned below.

This is a peculiar case in which the contesting respondents have raised an issue about the very "identity" of the petitioner, [tis their contention that the petitioner before this Court is a fictitious person who is impersonating a person called "Vetsa Geetha". This is the consistent version of the respondents all

through.

IA.No.2 of 2020 was filed seeking a direction for the personal appearance of the writ petitioner along with other auttenticated documents; aadhar card etc., for proving her

identity. Time was granted on 16.10.2020, 02.11.2020,

wr

09.11.2020, 17.11.2020 and 24.11.2020. On all these occasions, learned counsel for the writ petitioner sought time on various grounds. Ultimately, on 03.12.2020 after holding that the adequate opportunity was given, this Court directed issuance of non-bailable warrant (NBW) and directed that Vetsa Geetha should appear before this Court. The warrant was returned unexecuted stating that the Door number mentioned in the address was not existing. The police, therefore, expressed

their inability to execute the warrant.

During the course of hearing through video conference, one lady appeared along with her counsel, but her answers were not very convincing and she was not responding to the queries from the Court. She also filed a memo stating that she wishes to change her counsel. An opportunity was given to her on 22.01.2021 to engage another counsel and also to appear and argue IA.No.2 of 2021, where a dispute is raised about her identity. This was after the order dated 03.12.2020 was passed

issuing NBW. Now another counsel filed the current memo.

The respondents through their counsel appeared in this Court in person as they wanted to prove this Court that the lady appearing in the video conference is not the person who claims to be Vetsa Geetha. The lady however did not appear. Therefore, in line with their earlier submissions, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the "petitioner" should not be allowed to withdraw this case and that the dispute about her identity

and the issue of impersonation etc., that is raised should be

rns wae

investigated and concluded. They rely upon a report filed by the Crime Investigation Department (CID based on FIR.No.269/2011 filed at Machavaram Police Station. The charge sheet which is filed before the If Additional District Judge Court, Viayawada on 24.09.2020 is also relied upon by the counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel submits that the investigation by the police revealed that as the land documents at Sub-Registrars office were destroyed, the accused in this case called D.Rama Rao and V.Geetha created another "fictitious person". As per the submissions they noted the names of two deceased persons whose surname began with certain alphabets and obtained death certificate and created false documents. It is also mentioned that a death certificate in the name of V.Krishnaveni was sought to be corrected as the death certificate of "Vetsa Venkata Krishnaveni" on the basis of a forged document. As per the said report, the original

V.Krishnaveni was a five year old girl who died on 15.12.1991.

sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent, on the basis of this charge sheet, argues that while failing to appear before this Court, the petitioner filed an anticipatory bail petition No.509 of 2020 before the X Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. It is also mentioned that there are series of litigations which have been commenced and are still pending on the basis of a fictitious identity and that a systemic fraud is being perpetuated by abusing the process of law and the Court system. The learned counsel therefore submits that the

petitioner has created identity and on the basis of this fake

caren

identity she is carrying on illegal activities and blackmailing not only the present set of respondents, but many others. It is his contention that the petitioner does not have any threat from the respondents. Deliberately and wantonly she is avoiding to appear before the Court along with her identity. Therefore, he submits that this Court should continue the enquiry in IA.No.2 of 2020 and not grant the prayer for dismissing the writ petition, He also sought for a direction to X Additional District Judge, Vijayawada to conduct an enquiry into the identity of the person appearing before the Court. Relying upon two judgments reported in Anant Prasad Pandey v. Secretary Madhyamik Siksha Mandal and Vijay Kumar Gupta v. State of Maharashtra'. Learned counsel argues that this Court should not allow the petitioner to go scot free and should investigate the

matter.

The respondent did not make any submissions directly or

through her counsel,

It is clear that no one can take the advantage of the Court or the Court proceedings. Nobody should try to abuse the process of the Court. Purity in the dispensation of justice is of the highest importance. If anyone attempts to subvert the process of justice or misuse it for any personal gains they should be dealt with firmly and decisively. The law on the

subject is very clear. Fraud vitiates the most solemn acts.

9002 (2) MPLJ 369 Ce f 22008 (4) MHLJ 370

Fraud also vitiates the solemnity, orderliness of this temple of

justice,

IA.No.2 of 2020 was filed in October, 2020. The respondents have raised a serious dispute about the identity of the person claiming to be the petitioner. After five adjournments were granted, an order was passed issuing the NBW to Police to cause production of the petitioner before this Court. The Police gave a report stating that the address mentioned in the cause title of the writ petition does not exist and that they could not execute the warrant. Thereafter, the lady changed her counsel, appeared in person in the video conference as mentioned earlier. The proceedings were not conclusive. She later engaged a new counsel. Opportunity was given to her to engage counsel and also to argue IA.No.2 of 2020, where her identity was disputed.

At that stage, she filed a memo to withdraw the writ itself.

In IA.No.2 of 2020, it is pointed out that already a charge sheet is filed based upon an earlier complaint, wherein the Police have concluded that a person called Vetsa Geetha has impersonated a dead person and created certain records. This issue is still pending. This Court also notices that despite opportunities, the petitioner has not argued JA.No.2 of 2020, Counter affidavit was filed, but for reasons best known to the

petitioner, she decided not to argue the matter.

While the petitioner has the absdlute right to withdraw and

\ N

not to pursue her litigation, the fact remains that the allegations \ Nes, ' .

made are very serious. If the allegations made are found to be

weve can \

true, they would merit further action. The purity of this temple of justice cannot be sullied. She has not appeared nor has she actually cooperated with the Court. FIR.No.269 of 2011 was closed initially but the matter was reopened and further investigation was carried out by the CID which resulted in a charge sheet being filed as mentioned earlier. If the present allegations are true they do amount to an interference with the

due process of justice and also a clear abuse of the process.

In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition cannot be allowed to be closed. The reasons stated therein are not borne out by record. The request of the petitioner for withdrawal of the Case is, therefore, not acceded to

for the present.

Since the alleged impersonation etc., took place before the High Court, there shall be a direction to the Station House Officer, Thullur Police Station to carry out an investigation into the identity of the person called "Vetsa Geetha". She has filed an affidavit in W.P.No.15225 of 2020. She has also filed a counter affidavit in I.A.No.2 of 2020 giving details of her identity with Pan Card, Election identity card, Savings Bank account in SBI Guntur etc. The Station House Officer shall therefore carry out an investigation by collecting all the documents referred to in this order and other documents on the file of this Court including the charge sheet filed by the CID. He is also at liberty to gather further information /data/documents as are required

to complete the task assigned. He is directed to submit a

N \

To,

preliminary fact finding report to this Court about the identity of the present petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural is directed to supervise and monitor this action of the Station House Officer, Thullur in view of the

seriousness of the issues raised in the matter.

The Registrar (Judicial] is requested to communicate a copy of this order to the Station House Officer, Thullur and also

to the S.P.Rural, Guntur.

List the matter after two months for further hearing.

U. SRIDEV!

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ¢ ee As X

TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER For Al _ ce ene nytunentnninnnens ene a

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, State of Andhra Pradesh.

2. The Commissioner, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Gorantla, Guntur, Guntur District.

3. The Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, West Annapurna Nagar, HI Floor, 4° Lane Extention, Gorantla, Guntur -522 034.

4. The Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Vijayawada, Krishna District.

5. The Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

6. The City Planner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Viayawada, Krishna District.

7. The Assistant Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Patamata, Circle I, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

8. Chalasani Siva Nagesvyara Rao, S/o Ramarao, R/o D.No.72-2-4, Milkbobth Street, Patamata, Vijayawada, Krishna District, A.P.

9, Kamineni Sambasiva Rao, S/o Perayya, R/o Teja Towers, Patamata, Vijayawada.

10. Mandava Chilakarani, W/o Venkateswara Rao, R/o Flat No. 303, Sri Lakshmi sai Home Apartments, D.No.40-25-17/8A, Netaji Street, Patamata Lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna District. A.P.

11.Maddukuru Jyothi Rani, W/o Lakshmi Narayana, Blue Lotus, Hitex, Flat.No.403, Khanamet, Hyderabad, Telangana.

12. Mandava Sri Sravya, D/o Venkateswara Rao, R/o Flat No. 303, Sri Lakshmi sai Home Apartments, D.No.40-25-17/8A, Netaji Street, Patamata Janka, Vijayawada, Krishna District. A.P.

13. Valluru Nagamallika, D/o Nagabhushanam, 64-9-17, Chennupati Ramakotaiha Street, Patamata lankaVijayawada, Krishna Dist. A.P.

14. Valluru Vamsi Ramesh, S/o Nagabhushanam, 64-9-17, Chennupati Ramakotaiha Street, Patamata Lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. A.P.

15. Valluru Rajani, W/o Ramesh Babu, 64-9-17, Chennupati Ramakotaiha Street, Patamata Lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. A.P.

16. Valiuru Sheethal, D/o Ramesh Babu, 64-89-17, Chennupati Ramakotaina Street, Patamata Lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. A.P.

17.Valluru Girish Chandra, S/o Ramesh Babu, 64-9-17, Chennupati Ramakotaiha Street, Patamata Lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. A.P.

18. Valluru Chethan Susheel, S/o Ramesh Babu, 64-9-17, Chennupati Rarnakotaiha Street, Patamata Lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. A.P.

18. Mandava Venkateswara Rao, S/o Ramarao, R/o Flat No. 303, Sri Lakshmi sai Home Apartments, D.No.40-25-17/8A, Netaji Street, Patamata Lanka, Viayawada, Krishna District. A.P.

20.Mandava Anirudh, S/o, Venkateswara Rao, R/o Flat No. 303, Sri Lakshmi sai Home Apartments, D.No.40-25-17/8A, Netaji Street, Patamata lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna District. A.P.

21.Sri Cherukuri Sathish Babu, The Managing Partner, O/o 1° Floor, D Address Mall, M.G.Road, Vijayawada -10 (Addresses 1 to 21 by RPAD)

22. Dhulipala Srikanth M/s Sri Homes, The Managing Partner, Dhulipala Srikanth M/s Sri Homes, O/o 1™ Floor, D Address Mall. M.G.Road, Vijayawada -10 (Addresses 1 to 22 by RPAD)

23.One CC to Sri, Uma Maheswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

24. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

29.One CC to Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, Advocate (OPUC)

26. One CC to Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, High Court of Amaravathi.

27.One CC to Registrar(Judicial), High Court of AP at Amaravati.

28,One CC to The Station House Officer, Tullur Police Station, Guntur District.

29.One CC to Superintendent of Police, Guntur.

30. One spare copy

SRL

HIGH COURT DVSSJ

DATED:29/06/2021

NOTE: LIST THE MATTER AFTER TWO MONTHS FOR FURTHER HEARING ORDER

WP.No.15225 of 2020

DIRECTION