Judgment : The Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside G.O.Ms.No.926, Revenue (UC.1) Department, dated 31-8-2009 issued by respondent No.1, by declaring that the same is without jurisdiction, gross abuse of power, highly arbitrary, malafide and contrary to its own order dated 5-8-2006, G.O.Ms.No.456, dated 29-7-2002, G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18-6-2008 and the order of this Court dated 25-8-2009 in W.P.No.10947/2009. The petitioner sought for a further declaration that proceedings C.C.No.4567/76/B3, dated 19-9-2009 of respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioners’ representation as illegal and unsustainable. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to regularize the extents of Ac.0-82 cents and Ac.6-00 in old Sy.Nos.81/1 and 81/3, corresponding to new Sy.No.81/3P and patta No.165 of Marripalem village, Visakhapatnam Mandal and District in favour of the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18-6-2008. 2. The Contempt Case is filed by respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7 (hereinafter referred to as “the private respondents”) in the Writ Petition, to punish the writ petitioners under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 3. For convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition. 4. One Josyula Bhuvaneshwar Das, father of respondent Nos.4 to 6, was the original owner of Ac.0-82 cents and Ac.6-00 cents, comprised in old Sy.Nos.81/1 and 81/3 respectively, corresponding to new Sy.Nos.81/3P and covered by patta No.165, Marripalem village (hereinafter referred as “the subject land”). The petitioners pleaded that one Yellapu Raghavamma purchased the subject land under sale deed dated 18-10-1965 from the said Bhuvaneshwar Das. The petitioners claimed right and possession over the subject land through the said Yellapu Raghavamma, who appears to be the mother of some of the petitioners. They pleaded that after the death of Yellapu Raghavamma, the petitioners have divided the subject land among the family members and constructed seven houses thereon; that the houses were assessed to municipal tax, water tax etc., and separate house numbers were assigned; that the petitioners were availing power supply, telephone connection, water supply and getting civil supplies and that the names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records maintained by respondent No.6. In the year 2008, respondent No.2 issued notices to the petitioners stating that the lands shown therein are surplus lands under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the ULC Act”), calling upon them to seek regularization of their possession. In the year 2008, respondent No.2 issued notices to the petitioners stating that the lands shown therein are surplus lands under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the ULC Act”), calling upon them to seek regularization of their possession. The petitioners filed W.P.No.10947/2009 wherein they have inter alia averred that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the extent of Ac.6-82 cents inherited from their mother; that neither the petitioners have filed any declaration under the ULC Act nor they are parties to the ULC proceedings; that they made a representation on 28-8-2008 to the authorities under the ULC Act explaining the circumstances under which they became the owners of the subject land and that therefore they are not liable to be evicted. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein were impleaded as respondent Nos.8 to 11 in the said Writ Petition. They have pleaded that their ancestor J. Anantha Padmanabha Das filed declaration under the ULC Act in respect of entire surplus land which includes the subject land and that the application of those respondents for regularization of their possession is pending. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 25-8-2009 directing the authorities under the ULC Act to consider representation dated 28-8-2009, purported to have been made by the petitioners and pass orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order after hearing of the parties concerned. It was further directed that till disposal of the representation, the respondents shall maintain status quo as to the possession of the petitioners. Respondent No.1 has issued G.O.Ms.No.926, Revenue (UC.1) Department, dated 31-8-2009, whereby it has allotted the excess land, including the subject land, taken possession by it under the provisions of the ULC Act, in favour of the private respondents. The petitioners have filed C.C.No.246/2010 alleging willful disobedience of order of this Court dated 25-8-2009. The said Contempt Case was closed by placing on record the representation made on behalf of the ULC authorities that the order in W.P.No.10947/2009 was implemented by passing order dated 19-9-2009, rejecting the petitioners’ claim for regularization of the land, except to the extent of 200 sq. yards. While closing the Contempt Case, this Court has left the petitioners free to workout their remedies. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition. 5. yards. While closing the Contempt Case, this Court has left the petitioners free to workout their remedies. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition. 5. The petitioners have pleaded that regularization of the subject land in favour of the private respondents is illegal, arbitrary and malafide; that G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18-6-2008, under which allotment of subject land has been made to the private respondents envisages regularization of land only in favour of third parties who are in possession and the same has no application to the declarants or persons claiming through them; that G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18-6-2008, must be construed to be in consonance with the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Repeal Act 1999, and so construed, no regularization of land in favour of the declarants who are deemed to have been dispossessed could be made; that the claim of the private respondents was rejected earlier under G.O.Ms.No.456 dated 29-7-2002 and therefore the said order having become final, the impugned G.O. is in the teeth of the said order; that under G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18-6-2008, any claim must be made on or before 30-8-2008 and the applications filed by the private respondents, much later, should not have been entertained; that the impugned G.O. is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18-6-2008; that the impugned G.O. was issued on the recommendation of respondent No.2 who colluded with the private respondents and that the application of the private respondents was made nine months after expiry of due date and on the same day of receiving the applications, respondent No.2 has submitted report after her purported visit to the subject land. The petitioners pleaded that one Yellapu Eswar Rao was their General Power of Attorney (GPA); that they came to know that the said person has filed W.P.No.20759/2009 questioning the validity of the impugned G.O. and that he has withdrawn the same for the reasons best known to him. The petitioners have further averred that they have never authorized the said Eswar Rao to file the said Writ Petition and at the time of filing of the said Writ Petition, he was not the GPA as they have cancelled his power by issuing a registered legal notice dated 11-9-2009 and that therefore the order in W.P.No.20759/2009 does not bind them. The petitioners alleged that according to their reliable information, their former GPA colluded with the private respondents to the detriment of their interests and that therefore they have cancelled the GPA. 6. The official respondents have not filed their counter-affidavit. During the hearing of the case, the petitioners filed W.P.M.P.No.33259/2011 to call for vigilance report from respondent No.1 on various allegations made against respondent No.2, including the illegality committed by her in regularizing the subject land in favour of the private respondents. 7. On this Court directing the official respondents to justify their stand, respondent No.2 filed an affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Visakhapatnam called for original files pertaining to various lands including the subject land; that accordingly all the documents pertaining to the subject land were sent to the Inspector of Police, ACB, and that in view of the same, the office of respondent No.2 was unable to send para-wise remarks to the learned Government Pleader for filing the counter-affidavit. It is further stated that letters were addressed by the office of respondent No.2 on 14-6-2011 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, and to the Director General, ACB, on 18-9-2011, with a request to them to direct the ACB officials to provide the original records pertaining to the subject land and that the reply is awaited. On the oral directions of this Court, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) produced the ACB report in a sealed cover on 31-10-2011. Responding to the application of the petitioners for placing the Vigilance report before the court, the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Revenue, ULC Department, filed an affidavit along with the Vigilance report. He stated therein that in all 12 allegations were levelled against respondent No.2; that allotment of the subject land relates to item No.12 and that the General Administration (Vigilance & Enforcement) Department, after a thorough investigation and verification of records, found that the allegations relating to item No.12 are not substantiated.. 8. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the private respondents. At to the outset, an objection was taken in the counter-affidavit as to the maintainability of the Writ Petition in the face of dismissal of W.P.No.20759/2009 as withdrawn on 12-10-2009. The counter-affidavit has taken exception to the conduct of the petitioners in suppressing material facts. 8. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the private respondents. At to the outset, an objection was taken in the counter-affidavit as to the maintainability of the Writ Petition in the face of dismissal of W.P.No.20759/2009 as withdrawn on 12-10-2009. The counter-affidavit has taken exception to the conduct of the petitioners in suppressing material facts. It is alleged that the plea of the petitioners that W.P.No.20759/2009 was filed and withdrawn by their GPA without their instructions and that the GPA was cancelled by them by issuing registered notice on 11-9-2009, is false and invented to get over the dismissal of the earlier Writ Petition. It is further averred that the GPA of the petitioners filed O.S.No.1109/2009 on 21-8-2009 in the Court of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for the relief of permanent injunction; that in the said suit the private respondents are impleaded as defendants; that an exparte injunction was granted by the trial court on 24-8-2009; that after receipt of the said order by the private respondents, the elders known to both the parties have intervened and advised them to settle the issue as the litigation in the Civil Court will be unnecessarily prolonged and that on such intervention, the private respondents have paid Rs.30 lakhs to the petitioners/plaintiffs at the rate of Rs.50,000/-each to the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 5 to 8 and Rs.23 lakhs to their GPA. It is also averred that in pursuance of the said settlement, the petitioners have made an application for regularization of the land and respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order whereunder the possession of the petitioners, only to the extent of 200 sq. yards, was regularized; that after receipt of the amount of Rs.30 lakhs through demand drafts by the petitioners, an application was moved by their GPA before the competent authority on 24-9-2009 stating that they have no objection for regularization of the remaining land in favour of the family of the private respondents; that a memo was filed in the Court of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam on 29-9-2009 for advancement of the suit and accordingly the suit was advanced by the Court and that after examining the parties, the same was dismissed as not pressed. The counter-affidavit further averred that after dismissal of the suit, the petitioners have produced interim order dated 24-9-2009 passed by this Court in the present Writ Petition and have demanded further amounts for compromise; that accordingly the private respondents have paid a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- to petitioner No.4, Rs.5,50,000/- to petitioner No.5 and about Rs.47,00,000/-to the GPA holder, son and son-in-law and that after receiving the said amounts, the petitioners have got W.P.No.20759/2009 dismissed as withdrawn on 12-10-2009. It is also averred that the entire amount was paid by way of demand drafts and that the same have been encashed by the petitioners. It is further averred in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners again started demanding money and when the private respondents refused to meet their demand, the petitioners have filed C.C.No.246/2010 and that on coming to know about filing of the said Contempt Case, a detailed counter-affidavit was filed wherein the above mentioned facts were stated. The said Contempt Case was thereafter closed. The private respondents have alleged that the petitioners deliberately suppressed these facts. These respondents also seriously denied the stand of the petitioners that they have cancelled the GPA of Yellapu Eswar Rao through registered notice dated 11-9-2009 by averring that even though they have stated that the notice of the cancellation of the GPA was sent through registered post, the petitioners have filed a copy of the notice sent through certificate of posting. The private respondents termed the said notice and the certificate of posting as concocted documents pressed into service with a mala fide intention. The private respondents reserved their right to file a detailed counter-affidavit on merits, if necessary, after considering their preliminary objection on the maintainability of the Writ Petition for suppression of material facts by the petitioners. 9. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners to the above mentioned counter-affidavit. While reiterating their plea that the official respondents have colluded with the private respondents, the petitioners have admitted that they have filed O.S.No.1109/2009 in the court of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam against the private respondents for permanent injunction; that their former GPA has got the said suit dismissed as not pressed by filing a memo after cancellation of power of attorney without their knowledge. The petitioners asserted that they were not present in the court on 29-9-2009 as observed by the Civil Court in its Judgment in the said suit; that the memo allegedly filed before the Civil Court in the said suit for not pressing the same was not signed by them; that the said memo was filed by their former GPA behind their back; that as the dismissal of the suit took place at the instance of an unauthorized person, the order of the Civil Court is not binding on them and that the petitioners filed an application before the Civil Court for setting aside the order dismissing the suit and that the same is pending. The petitioners denied their entering into compromise with the private respondents at the intervention of the elders and their receiving monies in furtherance of such compromise. It is averred that their GPA had pressurized the petitioners to enter into an agreement of sale with the respondents for alienating the land and accordingly they have entered into an agreement of sale on 5-10-2009; that the private respondents have paid the amounts as specified “in their affidavit” towards advance money of sale transaction making them believe that they will pay the balance sale consideration at the time of registration and that whatever amount that was received from the private respondents is only an advance amount pursuant to the agreement of sale but not towards the alleged compromise. It is further stated that at the time of paying the advance amount of sale consideration, the private respondents have obtained the petitioners’ signatures on various blank stamp papers and blank white papers, making them believe that their signatures are required for the purpose of sale transaction, but unfortunately the private respondents have fabricated documents styling them as compromise memo using their signed blank stamp papers and that even though Yellapu Eswar Rao is one of the co-owners along with the petitioners, the fact of payment of huge amount to him by the private respondents shows beyond doubt that the said person has colluded with the private respondents, detrimental to their interests. The petitioners further alleged that the private respondents also managed their GPA to address letter dated 24-9-2009 to respondent No.2 conveying their no objection for regularizing the land in favour of the private respondents and therefore the said letter does not bind them; that after coming to know about the collusion of the private respondents with their GPA, the petitioners got a registered legal notice issued on 25-3-2011 to the private respondents canceling their agreement of sale and expressing their willingness to refund the amounts received by them towards advance sale consideration and that no reply was given by the private respondents to the said notice. The petitioners have expressed their readiness and willingness to pay back the advance amounts received by them to the private respondents. 10. As regards possession, the petitioners have explained the apparent inconsistency in their stand taken in the contempt case and the affidavit filed in this Writ Petition. They sought to explain the same by stating that even though in the contempt case they have stated that the private respondents have highhandedly dispossessed them from possession of the land on 2-10-2009, as they had no right to dispossess the petitioners they have taken back possession of the land on 7-2-2010 in pursuance of the interim order of this Court immediately, after lodging a police complaint and with the help of police and other well-wishers. 11. This case was posted before my learned brother Nooty Ramamohana Rao.,J. A perusal of the proceedings sheet shows that the case underwent as many as ten adjournments between 14-7-2011 and 29-8-2011. On 29-8-2011, the Hon’ble Judge had adjourned the case by passing the following order: “Though Sri O. Manohar Reddy, appearing on behalf of Sri B.V. Satish, opposed any further adjournment in the matter, as the situation is getting out of hand pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, I consider it appropriate to adjourn the matter to 2nd September 2011, as requested, on behalf of Sri C. Ramachandra Raju. It is made clear that no further adjournment would be accorded in the matter thereafter.” 12.Even thereafter, the case was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners on 2-9-2011, 5-9-2011 and 14-9-2011. It is made clear that no further adjournment would be accorded in the matter thereafter.” 12.Even thereafter, the case was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners on 2-9-2011, 5-9-2011 and 14-9-2011. On 21-9-2011, the learned Judge passed the following order : “I have heard these matters for considerable length of time and I have accommodated the requests made by the learned counsel for the petitioner consistently. I find that the petitioners seem to have some reservation for me to hear the matter, as the counsel is not readily available to proceed with the matter. Delete it from the list and place the papers before My Lord The Honourable Chief Justice for posting these cases before another Court, immediately.” 13. In pursuance of the said order, the case has been allotted to this Court which was posted to 23-9-2011, on which date the same was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners on recording firm assurance that the case will be argued on the next date of hearing. Evidently, on the same day, an affidavit was filed by the petitioners wherein it is inter alia stated that as the order dated 19-9-2009 passed by respondent No.2 is a nullity as the same was in violation of the order dated 25-8-2009 of this Court in W.P.No.10947/2009, the petitioners felt that they need not elaborately deal with the order on merits and that by way of abundant caution, they are raising the pleas on merits of the order as well. The petitioners have denied the finding of respondent No.2 in the impugned order that they have fabricated the notices by changing the extent from 50 yards to 1500 and 1800 meters and that respondent No.2 failed to file a counter-affidavit in W.P.No.10947/2009 questioning the genuineness of the notices. The petitioners also denied the finding in the impugned order that the 10(1) account is tampered, as having no basis. It is further pleaded that respondent No.2 did not issue notice dated 14-9-2009 as stated in his order dated 19-9-2009 and that they neither appeared before respondent No.2 on 18-9-2009 nor submitted any documents on 19-9-2009. The petitioners added that their former GPA might have received the notice on 14-9-2009 and appeared before respondent No.2 and produced the documents without any authority. The petitioners added that their former GPA might have received the notice on 14-9-2009 and appeared before respondent No.2 and produced the documents without any authority. The petitioners further pleaded that as they have cancelled the GPA by issuing legal notice, the said person could not represent them; that after filing the Writ Petition, the petitioners came to know that the date of filing the application by the private respondents seeking allotment of the land and the date of submission of report by respondent No.2 after inspection of the lands, is one and the same and that it was highly unnatural that on the same day on which the applications were made, the report was also submitted by respondent No.2 which prove beyond doubt that the action of respondent No.2 was mala fide and pre-meditated. It is also averred that the date of filing the application for regularization of land under G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18-6-2008, is 31-8-2008, but the private respondents have applied for regularization much later to that date. 14. The petitioners have filed another affidavit styling the same as reply affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that the Post Master, Waltair issued letter to the private respondents’ Advocate Sri Ratnakar Rao stating that the seal on the certificate of posting produced by the private respondents in the Writ Petition does not relate to their office. The petitioners have alleged that the private respondents have produced certificate of posting before the Post Master other than the one through which the petitioners’ counsel had sent the notice. It is further stated that the petitioners got letter dated 7-9-2011 addressed through their Counsel to the Post Master seeking clarification on the certificate of posting through which the petitioners have actually sent the notice and that so far no reply has been received; that their Advocate Sri A. Appa Rao, who has issued the legal notice canceling the GPA and posted the same in the Waltair Post Office, has also addressed letter dated 19-9-2011 to the Post Master, Waltair Post Office, requesting confirmation of issuance of certificate of posting, enclosing the certificate of posting filed in the Writ Petition and that their Advocate Sri A. Appa Rao, has also addressed letter dated 19-9-2011 to the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Visakhapatnam to instruct the Post Master of Waltair Post Office, to issue confirmation and that such conformation is awaited. Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners advanced his submissions on the purported illegalities in the impugned G.O. at length. The learned counsel also advanced various submissions on merits touching the proceedings dated 19-9-2009 whereby respondent No.2 has rejected the petitioners’ claim for regularization of Ac.6-82 cents, except to the extent of 200 sq. yards. 15. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the private respondents, while meeting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, on merits, however, raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the Writ Petition at the instance of the petitioners by stating that the petitioners have indulged in deliberate suppression of material facts and have made every attempt to mislead this Court. The learned counsel further submitted that but for the petitioners indulging in such conduct, this Court would not have entertained the Writ Petition and granted the interim order. The learned counsel submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being purely discretionary in nature, the petitioners have to be non-suited only on the ground that they have not come to this Court with clean hands and that the legality or otherwise of the impugned orders need not be adjudicated at the instance of such persons. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited (2008) 12 SCC 481. 16. Having regard to the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the private respondents, I find it appropriate to deal with the same. Depending upon the conclusion that may be arrived at on this aspect, the necessity of dealing with the merits of the case and adjudicating on the validity or otherwise of the impugned orders will be decided. In other words, if the preliminary objection raised by the private respondents is sustained, the need to deal with the merits of the contentions advanced by both the parties on the validity of the impugned orders, will be obviated. 17. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary. Unless this Court is convinced that a person has approached it with clean hands, it is under no obligation to extend its aid to such a person. 17. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary. Unless this Court is convinced that a person has approached it with clean hands, it is under no obligation to extend its aid to such a person. While exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, this Court will bear in mind the conduct of the parties. If this Court is convinced that a party has approached it with unclean hands, it will not allow such a party to touch the fountain of justice as it is the sacred duty and obligation of this Court to keep it pure and clean at any cost and in any event. 18. The Supreme Court in Dalip Singh Vs. State of A.P. while taking judicial notice of falling moral values of life, observed: “For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., ‘satya’ (truth) and ‘ahimsa’ (non-violence). Mahavir, Goutam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the Courts irrespective of the consequences. However, the post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.” 19. In Oswal Fats and Oils Limited Vs. In Oswal Fats and Oils Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, (2010) 4 SCC 728 the Apex Court while dealing with the conduct of a party in suppressing material facts, observed: “It is settled law 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 system of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person.” 20. In K.D. Sharma (1-supra), on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the private respondents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to grant relief in favour of the appellant before it on finding that he has deliberately suppressed the notice issued by the Steel Authority of India Limited in relation to a tender notice. It was held that the appellant has not placed all the facts before the Court “clearly, candidly and frankly”. In that context, the Apex Court has usefully referred to the two separate opinions of Scrutton, Lord Justice and Viscount Reading, C.J., to drive home the necessity for a party to disclose all the relevant facts to the Court especially when he seeks to obtain relief on an ex parte statement. In paragraphs 35 and 37 of the Judgment, these two opinions are reproduced, which in the context of the present case are very apt to be reminded of. In paragraphs 35 and 37 of the Judgment, these two opinions are reproduced, which in the context of the present case are very apt to be reminded of. Therefore, it is useful to refer to them herein below: “…The underlying object has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J. in the leading case of R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commrs.(1917) 1 K.B. 486: 86 LJKB 257: 116 LT 136 (CA), in the following words: (KB p.514) “…it has been for many years the rule of the court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts – it says facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it – the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts; and the penalty by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement.” (emphasis supplied) … “…where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant’s affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant’s affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that the Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit.” (emphasis supplied.) 21. Sinha.,CJ, as he then was, speaking for a Division Bench of this Court in Ibiza Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India 1998(5) ALT 259 applied the doctrine of Uberrima fides, recognized by English Courts and applied by the Courts in our country and held as under : “Be it noted that a Prerogative Writ is not to be issued as a matter of course. The applicant must come in the manner prescribed and adopt a method which is otherwise in accordance with law and must be perfectly frank and open with the Court. There is an obligation on the part of applicant in an application under Article 226 to be candid and be otherwise fair to the Court so as not to mislead the Court. The Doctrine of Uberrima Fides has its fullest application in a petition under Article 226. The Court is not to use a discretion in the event of there being any attempt on the part of the petitioner to mislead the Court.” The Bench further held : “The application of the Doctrine of Uberrima Fides in a writ petition praying, inter alia, for issuance of a high prerogative writ has been recognized since the decision of the Court of Appeal is the King’s Bench Division (KBD) in the case of Rex v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, Princess Edmond De Polignac, exparte 1917(1) King’s Bench 486, the case of a Russian Princess. 22. As noted above, invocation of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court is discretionary and the question invariably before the Court is whether, in fact, it should exercise its discretion in favour of the party or not? 22. As noted above, invocation of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court is discretionary and the question invariably before the Court is whether, in fact, it should exercise its discretion in favour of the party or not? And it is on this context that the conduct of the party has a definite and an important bearing in the exercise of discretionary power and invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We do deem it fit to record that the High Court would always refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of an applicant if he (the applicant) makes a statement which cannot be termed to be correct or suppressed facts or being desirous of granting an undue and unfair advantage or misleads the Court in any way. In this context reference may be made to a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Asiatic Engineering Co. v. Acchree Ram, AIR 1951 All. 746 (FB) as also the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Ananthun Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 1968 Ker. 234 (FB) and the Division Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Jiban Krishna Karmakar v. State of West Bengal, 1992 CWN 226 (DB) and the observations made therein do lend concurrence to the views expressed above.” 23. Keeping in mind, the legal position as crystallized in various judicial pronouncements noted above, the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the private respondents, needs to be examined. To put it in a nutshell, the pleas of the private respondents on the conduct of the petitioners in allegedly suppressing the material facts and misleading this Court, are as under: 1. That the petitioners have deliberately suppressed their filing the civil suit O.S.No.1109/2009 in the Court of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, through their GPA; their receiving, along with their GPA, Rs.30 lakhs; their GPA moving an application before respondent No.2 on 19-9-2009 agreeing for regularization of the lands in favour of the private respondents except to the extent of 200 sq. yards; the petitioners filing compromise memo and understanding through their GPA in the civil suit and the dismissal of the said civil suit as withdrawn by the Civil Court through its Judgment dated 29-9-2009; 2. yards; the petitioners filing compromise memo and understanding through their GPA in the civil suit and the dismissal of the said civil suit as withdrawn by the Civil Court through its Judgment dated 29-9-2009; 2. That the petitioners further suppressed their demanding more money on the basis of interim order dated 24-9-2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.20759/2009; reaching an agreement with the private respondents for receiving additional money and accordingly receiving additional sums of Rs.6,50,000/- by petitioner No.4, Rs.5,50,000/- by petitioner No.5 and about Rs.47 lakhs by their GPA holder, his son and son-in-law; 3. That the petitioners filed Contempt Case suppressing the above facts; and 4. That the petitioners have raised a deliberately false plea of purported cancellation of the GPA through an alleged registered notice dated 11-9-2009 and they conceded later that the legal notice was sent through certificate of posting and that even the alleged certificate of posting is a concocted document. 24. Let me now consider the above noted pleas. The fact that the petitioners, through their GPA has filed O.S.No.1109/2009 in the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, is now admitted by them in their reply affidavit. This fact was not mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. A copy of the plaint in the said suit is part of record of this case and a perusal of the same would show that the same was filed by the petitioners herein through their GPA holder Yellapu Eswar Rao, who is not only a family member of the petitioners but also plaintiff No.9 in the suit. All the private respondents and the official respondents in this Writ Petition are parties to the said suit filed on 21-8-2009 for permanent and prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants therein from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. An exparte injunction was granted by the Civil Court on 24-8-2009. A few days after filing of the suit by the petitioners, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.926, dated 31-8-2009 regularising the lands in favour of the private respondents. The petitioners filed W.P.No.20759/2009 questioning the said G.O. It is the case of the private respondents and admitted by the petitioners that at the intervention of the elders an agreement was reached between the parties through which the private respondents have paid Rs.30 lakhs to the petitioners and their GPA. The petitioners filed W.P.No.20759/2009 questioning the said G.O. It is the case of the private respondents and admitted by the petitioners that at the intervention of the elders an agreement was reached between the parties through which the private respondents have paid Rs.30 lakhs to the petitioners and their GPA. Before the said amount was received by the petitioners, a Memo along with certain documents was filed by their GPA before respondent No.2 on 19-9-2009. Upon consideration of the said Memo and the documents, respondent No.2 has passed order on 19-9-2009 regularising an extent of 200 sq. yards in favour of the petitioners. It is the pleaded case of the private respondents that after the amount of Rs.30 lakhs was received through demand drafts, the GPA of the petitioners filed a representation on 24-9-2009 before respondent No.2 stating that they have no objection for regularization of the remaining land in favour of the private respondents. A Memo was also filed on 29-9-2009 in the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam by the petitioners’ GPA wherein it was stated that the plaintiffs have received Rs.30 lakhs towards full and final settlement of their claim in pursuance of a compromise entered into between the parties at the intervention of the mediators and that therefore the plaintiffs are not pressing the suit. A request was accordingly made to dismiss the suit. 25. A few days before filing the said Memo before the Civil Court, the petitioners secured an interim order on 24-9-2009 in W.P.No.20759/2009 to the effect that the petitioners shall not be evicted from the lands in dispute. The private respondents pleaded that after the suit was dismissed in the presence of the petitioners and their GPA on 29-9-2009 on the basis of the Memo filed not pressing the same, the petitioners have shown the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.20759/2009 dated 24-9-2009 to them and demanded further amounts; that to avoid further litigation, they have paid a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- to petitioner No.4, Rs.5,50,000/- to petitioner No.5 and about Rs.47 lakhs to the GPA holder, his son and son-in-law and that after receiving the said amounts, the petitioners, through their GPA withdrew W.P.No.20759/2009 vide order dated 12-10-2009. To substantiate their plea of payment of the amounts totalling Rs.1,38,85,500/- in two different spells on 22-9-2009 and 3-10-2009, the private respondents have given the details of the demand drafts/cheque numbers, the amounts and the persons in whose favour the said amounts were paid. A perusal of this statement would show that petitioner No.1 received Rs.50,000/- through D.D/Cheque No.611370 on 22-9-2009, petitioner No.2 received Rs.2 lakhs on 22-9-2009through D.D/Cheque No.611371 and Rs.5,50,000/- on 3-10-2009 through D.D/Cheque No.084784, petitioner No.3 received Rs.50,000/- on 22-9-2009 under D.D/Cheque No.611372, petitioner No.4 received Rs.2 lakhs through D.D/Cheque No.611373 and Rs.6,50,000/- on 3-10-2009 under D.D/Cheque No.084783, petitioner No.5 received Rs.50,000/- on 22-9-2009 under D.D/Cheque No.611374, petitioner No.6 received Rs.50,000/- on 22-9-2009 through D.D/Cheque No.611375, petitioner No.7 received Rs.50,000/- on 22-9-2009 through D.D/Cheque No.611376 and petitioner No.8 received Rs.50,000/-on 22-9-2009 through D.D/Cheque No.611377. 26. In their reply affidavit, the petitioners have admitted the fact of their filing O.S.No.1109/2009 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, through their GPA. They have further averred that their GPA has got the said suit dismissed on 29-9-2009 as not pressed by filing a Memo without their knowledge after purported cancellation of his power of attorney through registered legal notice dated 11-9-2009. The petitioners asserted that they were not present before the Civil Court on 29-9-2009 when the suit was dismissed and that the Memo filed in the Civil Court was not signed by them. The petitioners have, in unequivocal terms, admitted receipt of the monies as stated by the private respondents in their affidavit. They have however sought to explain that the private respondents, in pursuance of the oral agreement of sale dated 5-10-2009, have paid said amounts to them towards advance money of sale transaction with a further promise that they will pay the balance sale consideration at the time of registration. The petitioners have further pleaded that by misrepresenting that their signatures are needed in connection with the sale transaction, the same were obtained by their GPA on blank stamp papers and white papers and obviously they were used for filing the compromise Memo. The petitioners have further pleaded that by misrepresenting that their signatures are needed in connection with the sale transaction, the same were obtained by their GPA on blank stamp papers and white papers and obviously they were used for filing the compromise Memo. It is also pleaded by them that the private respondents have managed with their former GPA and got letter dated 24-9-2009 addressed to respondent No.2 conveying no objection on their behalf for regularizing the land in favour of the private respondents; that on coming to know about their GPA’s collusion with the private respondents, the petitioners have got issued registered legal notice dated 25-3-2011 to the private respondents canceling the agreement of sale and expressing their willingness to refund the amounts received by them towards advance sale consideration. 27. All the events which were narrated hereinabove, except issuance of registered legal notice dated 25-3-2011, have occurred prior to the petitioners’ filing the present Writ Petition. Except filing of W.P.No.20759/2009 and its withdrawal by their GPA, the petitioners have made no whisper of any of those events. Since the petitioners have questioned the validity of the G.O. issued by respondent No.1 regularising the land in favour of the private respondents and also the proceeding of respondent No.2 whereby she has regularized the land only to the extent of 200 sq. yards in favour of the petitioners, each one of the facts narrated above is material in adjudicating on the respective rights of the parties. Except denying the allegation of suppression of facts, the petitioners have not explained the reason why they have not chosen to disclose all those facts, which reflect upon their conduct. Obviously to overcome the fact that they have earlier filed W.P.No.20759/2009, assailing the same G.O. which is questioned in this Writ Petition, the petitioners have feigned ignorance of withdrawal of the said Writ Petition on the purported ground that the same was without their knowledge and made by their GPA in collusion with the private respondents after they have cancelled the GPA through purported registered legal notice dated 11-9-2009. 28. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that they have cancelled the GPA held by Yellapu Eswar Rao through purported registered legal notice dated 11-9-2009. At the hearing, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said notice was not sent by registered post but through certificate of posting. 28. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that they have cancelled the GPA held by Yellapu Eswar Rao through purported registered legal notice dated 11-9-2009. At the hearing, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said notice was not sent by registered post but through certificate of posting. There is controversy even relating to the genuineness or otherwise of the said certificate of posting, which may not be very much relevant in the present context. In the first place, a perusal of the purported legal notice dated 11-9-2009 shows that it was shown to have been sent through registered post but the same was stated to have been sent under certificate of posting as evident from a copy of the purported certificate filed by the petitioners. While alleging that their GPA has put them in dark by colluding with the other parties and failed to safeguard their interests, the petitioners have called upon the GPA not to act further on such GPA and that if he so acts, his acts will not bind them. Through the said legal notice dated 11-9-2009, the petitioners only asked their GPA not to act further on their behalf. Even construing this as an instrument canceling the GPA, no material is filed to show that the said copy was received by the GPA. As noted above, it was mentioned in the notice that the same was purportedly sent through registered post while admittedly it was sent through certificate of posting, the authenticity of which itself is in dispute. 29. That the plea of the petitioners that the GPA was cancelled through purported notice dated 11-9-2009 is thoroughly false and the same is nothing but a subterfuge, is evident from three glaring circumstances. Firstly, it is the specific case of the petitioners, as come out by them in paragraph-7 of the reply affidavit that on the pressure exerted by their GPA, they have entered into an agreement of sale with the private respondents for alienating the land and that accordingly they have entered into oral agreement of sale on 5-10-2009. If the petitioners have terminated the GPA on 11-9-2009 as pleaded by them, the question of they being pressurized by a person whose GPA was already terminated, would not have arisen when the alleged oral agreement of sale was entered into on 5-10-2009. If the petitioners have terminated the GPA on 11-9-2009 as pleaded by them, the question of they being pressurized by a person whose GPA was already terminated, would not have arisen when the alleged oral agreement of sale was entered into on 5-10-2009. This fact itself, which thoroughly exposes the falsity of the petitioners’ case, is enough to conclusively reject their version that they have terminated the GPA and that the dismissal of W.P.No.20759/2009 vide order dated 12-10-2009, at the instance of Yellapu Eswar Rao, is without their knowledge and that the same does not bind them. 30. Secondly, if they have terminated the GPA, the petitioners would not have been personally present in the Court on 29-9-2009 along with their GPA and allowed the suit dismissed as not pressed on the basis of their Memo earlier filed through their GPA. To overcome the hurdle of their presence before the Civil Court when the suit was dismissed, the petitioners have coined a theory that the finding of the Civil Court in the Judgment on their personal presence before it on 29-9-2009, is incorrect. The law is well settled that the statements of facts as to what transpired at the hearing and recorded in the Judgment of the Court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and that no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence (See State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak (1982) 2 SCC 463 and Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 111 ). 31. In the Judgment dated 29-9-2009, in O.S.No.1109/2009, the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, recorded as under : “Plaintiffs 1 to 8 cum General Power of Attorney holder/9th plaintiff present and filed petition to advance the matter today along with not pressing memo. Hence matter is advanced to today. Not pressing memo filed by plaintiff’s counsel is recorded. Hence the suit is dismissed as not pressed. No costs.” 32. It is therefore wholly impermissible for the petitioners to contradict what is recorded by the Civil Court relating to their presence before it on 29-9-2009 when the suit was dismissed as not pressed. 33. Hence matter is advanced to today. Not pressing memo filed by plaintiff’s counsel is recorded. Hence the suit is dismissed as not pressed. No costs.” 32. It is therefore wholly impermissible for the petitioners to contradict what is recorded by the Civil Court relating to their presence before it on 29-9-2009 when the suit was dismissed as not pressed. 33. Thirdly, if the petitioners were not satisfied with the conduct of their GPA and terminated the power, there was no reason why petitioner Nos.2 and 4 have received, on 3-10-2009, substantial amounts of Rs.6,50,000/- and Rs.5,50,000/-, respectively, much after cancellation of the purported GPA. These are the huge gaping holes in the concocted story sought to be weaved by the petitioners in their desperate attempt to convince this Court that their conduct is not blameworthy and that they have not suppressed the material facts before this Court. The facts discussed above clearly reveal that they played ducks and drakes not only with the private respondents but also with the Courts. Apart from filing successive Writ Petitions and a contempt case, the petitioners approached the Civil Court. Initially they have received certain amounts from the private respondents and by using the interim order 24-9-2009 secured from this Court in W.P.No.20759/2009, they have once again extracted further amounts from the private respondents. Not being satisfied with the same they filed the present Writ Petition without disclosing the fact of filing the suit, their entering into oral agreement with the private respondents and their receiving money in two spells. Finally, when their bluff is called in the counter-affidavit filed by the private respondents in the present Writ Petition, they have tried to cover up their despicable conduct by seeking to offer unconvincing explanations. The petitioners appear to be habituated in hurling allegations against everyone. They have attributed motives to respondent No.2, alleged collusion between their GPA and the private respondents and they have not even spared the Civil Court by suggesting that recording of their presence in the Judgment is incorrect. This devious conduct of the petitioners is thoroughly exposed from the above noted incontrovertible facts. Except making allegations, they failed to substantiate the same with reference to any material worth the name. The petitioners have obviously sought to take advantage of the vulnerable position of the private respondents by indulging in vexatious litigation through their GPA. This devious conduct of the petitioners is thoroughly exposed from the above noted incontrovertible facts. Except making allegations, they failed to substantiate the same with reference to any material worth the name. The petitioners have obviously sought to take advantage of the vulnerable position of the private respondents by indulging in vexatious litigation through their GPA. I have therefore no hesitation to hold that the petitioners have deliberately suppressed the material facts before this Court in the present Writ Petition. Following the dicta laid down by the Constitutional Courts as discussed above, the Writ Petition is liable to be thrown out for this reason as the conduct of the petitioners disentitles them to seek adjudication of the case on merits. 34. As noted above, an interlocutory application is filed seeking summoning of the investigation reports. Both the reports of the ACB and the Vigilance Department have been placed in sealed covers before this Court which are kept in-tact without being opened. As this Court is declining to adjudicate the case on merits, it is not necessary to look into these reports. However, respondent No.1 is left free to take appropriate action against respondent No.2 if any of these reports has indicted the latter. The dismissal of this Writ Petition also shall not be understood as this Court upholding the validity of the impugned G.O. issued in favour of the private respondents. Respondent No.1 is left free to take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law in the event it is found that the impugned G.O. was issued on account of any fraud or misrepresentation. 35. Coming to the Contempt Case, if a party suppresses material facts, it will disable the Court from arriving at a proper and correct decision while adjudicating the dispute. This eventually results in failure of justice. There can therefore be no doubt that a party which deliberately suppresses the material facts is guilty of interfering with the due administration of justice by the Courts. 36. In the light of the findings rendered above, the conduct of the petitioners in deliberately suppressing the facts, certainly constitutes contempt. In K.D. Sharma (1-supra), the Supreme Court has held that if a person indulges in deliberate suppression of facts, he requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. The petitioners have not even expressed their regrets for their exceptional conduct. In K.D. Sharma (1-supra), the Supreme Court has held that if a person indulges in deliberate suppression of facts, he requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. The petitioners have not even expressed their regrets for their exceptional conduct. Having given the earnest consideration and considering the fact that the petitioners appear to come from lower strata of society, this Court, while finding them guilty of contempt of Court, imposes a fine of Rs.500/- on each of the petitioners. 37. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) payable by each of the petitioners.The Contempt Case is disposed of imposing a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) on each of the petitioners.The private respondents are entitled to recover these costs.