Munagaala Ramesh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5205 AP

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

                WRIT PETITION No.25597 of 2022

JUDGMENT:-

      Heard Sri P.Kameswara Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri G.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel, representing

Sri   M.Manohar     Reddy,     learned    Standing     Counsel     for     the

respondent No.2.

2. Sri Munagaala Ramesh, the petitioner, is present in person.

3. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been filed for the following relief:-

"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent without following the due process of law making attempts to demolish the petitioner's house property vide baring Ward No.08, Block No.26 situated at D.Nos.23-11-121, 23-11-119 and 23-10-2A, Nageswara Rao Panthulu Road, Revenue Ward No.47, Vijayawada, N.R.T. District previously Krishna District is illegal, arbitrary violation of principles of natural justice, violative of Section 452 of the Municipal Corporation Act 1955 and consequently direct the respondent not to interfere/demolish the petitioner's house property forthwith without following due process of law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

4. In the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the

respondents, particularly the respondent No.2 is making an

attempt to demolish the petitioner's property without following due

process of law and without issuing any notice.

5. Paragraph Nos.2 and 5 in this respect are being reproduced

as under:-

"2. I submit the present writ petition is being filed to declare the action of the respondents particularly 2nd respondent in making attempts to demolish the petitioner's property an extent of 436.19 Square yards of site bearing Ward No.08, Block No.26 situated at D.Nos.23-11-121, 23- 11-119 and 23-10-2A, Nageswara Rao Panthulu Road, Revenue Ward No.47, Vijayawada, N.R.T. District previously Krishna District, without following due process of law and without issuing any notice as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of articles 14, 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India and violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

5. I submit that when the construction is under process all of sudden without any issuing any notice and information, the 2nd respondent officials are obstructing the progress of the construction and thereby creating hindrance to the daily works of our construction. Having invested of so much money in purchasing the property and started construction, without due process of law, the action of the respondents in trying to disposes/demolish our under construction building vide bearing Ward No.08, Block No.26 situated at D.Nos.23-11- 121, 23-11-119 and 23-10-2A, Nageswara Rao Panthulu Road, Revenue Ward No.47, Vijayawada, N.R.T. District previously Krishna District is illegal arbitrary and violation of Municipality Act, 1955 as well as in breach of principles of natural justice. It is important submit that as per Section 452 of the Municipal Corporation Act the authorities are duly bound to issue notice to the concerted party if they are any deviation calling explanation within 15 days and after receipt of the explanation only if not satisfied then only authorities can initiate process for dispossession or demolition in accordance with law. This Section has been violated by the 2nd respondent and hence the action in trying to dispossess/demolition is illegal and arbitrary. Hence this Writ Petition."

6. Sri G.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri

M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent

No.2, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation submitted, on

16.08.2022, on the basis of instructions received that notice

No.901/1073/VMC/UC/2022, dated 03.08.2022 under Section

452 (1) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955

was issued and 3 copies were served on the petitioner on

03.08.2022 itself.

7. On 16.08.2022, this Court passed the following order:-

"This petition has been filed on the averments that the respondent No.2, without following due process of law and without issuing any notice is obstructing the progress of the construction and creating hindrance in the daily works of the construction over the petitioner's land and as alleged as per the sanctioned plan.

Sri G.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 i.e. Vijayawada Municipal Corporation on the basis of instructions received from the respondent No.2 submits that a notice under Section 452 (1) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 was issued and served on the petitioner on 03.08.2022 itself. This petition was filed on 11.08.2022 and the affidavit of the petitioner is dated 10.08.2022, but there is no disclosure of service of the notice dated 03.08.2022. Accordingly, list on 17.08.2022 in the "Motion List" as the first case.

The petitioner shall appear before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall ensure his presence. The case will not be adjourned tomorrow on any ground."

8. Sri Munagaala Ramesh, the petitioner has stated, orally that

his signature were obtained, but the copy of the notice was not

given. He however, admits that the notice contains his signature

and he further admits the endorsement made on the notice dated

03.08.2022 of receiving the copy of the notice.

9. Notice No.901/1073/VMC/UC/2022, dated 03.08.2022, is

taken on record and shall form part of the record.

10. The petitioner's endorsement dated 03.08.2022 is as under:-

"To Sri/Smt Munagala Ramesh, D.No/Plot No.23-11-121, Election Ward No.33, Nageswararao Pantulu Road Street/Colony Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada.

              (Sd/-              )   3/8/22
                 Received Copy
                 (M.RAMESH)
                       3"

11. He further submits that the above fact was not disclosed to

his counsel.

12. The present is a clear case of concealment of material fact,

and an effort to get orders by misleading the Court, which amounts

to an abuse of the process of the Court. What has been stated by

the petitioner that copy was not given and only signature was

obtained is after thought and contrary to endorsement on notice.

13. In Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner

(Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and others1, the

Hon'ble Apex Court held that a person who approaches the Court

for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn

obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts

which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the

case. In other words, he owes a duty to the Court to bring out all

the facts and refrain from concealing/suppressing any material

fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by

exercising diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. If

he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an

attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the Court not only

has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person.

(2010) 4 SCC 728

14. In Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and

others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no litigant can play

"hide and seek" with the courts or adopt "pick and choose". True

facts ought to be disclosed as the court knows law, but not facts.

One, who does not come with candid facts and clean breast cannot

hold a writ of the court with soiled hands. Suppression or

concealment of material facts is impermissible to a litigant or even

as a technique of advocacy. In such cases, the court is duty-

bound to discharge rule nisi and such applicant is required to be

dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of court.

15. In Sciemed Overseas Inc. vs. Boc India Limited and

others3, the Hon'ble Apex Court, referring to Muthu Karuppan vs.

Parithi Ilamvazhuthi {(2011) 5 SCC 496 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 709},

in which it was held that the filing of a false affidavit should

effectively curbed with a strong hand, held that though the

observation was made in the context of contempt of court

proceedings, but the view expressed must be generally endorsed to

preserve the purity of the judicial proceedings.

16. The petitioner had tried to pollute the stream of justice and

has filed false affidavit which is an evil and must be effectively

curbed with a strong hand to preserve the purity of the judicial

proceedings.

17. The writ petition is dismissed imposing costs of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on the petitioner.

18. Let the costs be deposited within 15 days from today with

the Andhra Pradesh State High Court Legal Services Authority in

the High Court premises, Amaravati, failing which, immediately on

(2013) 2 SCC 398

(2016) 3 SCC 70

expiry of 15th day, the Registrar of this Court shall proceed to

initiate the proceedings to recover the same, in accordance with

law.

19. Report to the above effect shall also be placed on record.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

shall also stand closed.

__________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J Date: 17.08.2022

Note:-

L.R.Copy to be marked

B/o

SCS

74466446544455554646

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

WRIT PETITION No.25597 of 2022

Date: 17.08.2022

Scs