ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “........to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned proceedings for the 2nd respondent in File No. MAU61-DPOGNT (OTH)/60/2021-GNDP dated 28.10.2021 directing the petitioner to remove the alleged unauthorized construction of the building in premises bearing Door No. 1-258/2 in D. No. 92/1 consisting of G+1 Floor, situated at Pedaparimi Village, Thulluru Mandal, Guntur district confirmed under the provisional order dated 02.09.2021 U/s. 89(3) of the APMR and UDA Act, 2016 is being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against to the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No. 15880 of 2021 and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent not to demolish the subject building premises and pass such other order or orders......” 2. The averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that property measuring about 300 square yards in Block No. 2 in survey No. 92/1 is ancestral property and had fallen to the share of petitioner’s husband, in family partition dated 17.12.2005. Petitioner’s husband sold the said property to the petitioner’s father under registered document, bearing No. 825 of 2012 dated 16.03.2012. Thereafter, petitioner’s father obtained building permission from respondent No. 3, for construction of ground and first floor. In fact, after obtaining building permission, petitioner’s father gifted the property to the petitioner by registered document No. 3423/2017 dated 29.07.2017. The construction was completed in 2016-17. Since the property was not assessed to tax, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 40170 of 2018 on the file of composite High Court against Gram Panchayat and said writ petition was disposed of on 09.11.2018 directing the respondents therein to determine the tax payable by the petitioner by properly assessing the tax and inform the amount to the petitioner, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of said order. Thereafter, the authorities assessed tax in respect of the subject property, vide assessment No. 2010 and petitioner has been paying the taxes regularly. (b) While the matter stood thus, one Putti Seetharavamma, close relative of the petitioner filed W.P. No. 20735 of 2018 complaining illegal construction made in land admeasuring Ac.0-23 cents in D. No. 92/1 of Pedaparimi village, Thulluru Mandal, Guntur District, A.P. Subsequently, said Putti Seetharavamma filed another writ petition vide W.P. No. 15880 of 2021, with similar relief. (b) While the matter stood thus, one Putti Seetharavamma, close relative of the petitioner filed W.P. No. 20735 of 2018 complaining illegal construction made in land admeasuring Ac.0-23 cents in D. No. 92/1 of Pedaparimi village, Thulluru Mandal, Guntur District, A.P. Subsequently, said Putti Seetharavamma filed another writ petition vide W.P. No. 15880 of 2021, with similar relief. (c) Construction was completed six years back. However, show cause notice vide ROC No. 2 Illegal Constructions/JA dated 24.04.2021 was issued to the petitioner, asking her to submit requisite documents in respect of the constructions. Since petitioner failed to submit the same, another show cause notice vide ROC No. 4 Illegal Constructions/JA, dated 02.08.2021 was issued, for which petitioner submitted explanation on 10.08.2021. A provisional order dated 27.08.2021 was issued by Zonal Joint Director, under Section 89 (1) and (2) of Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 (for short ‘APMR & UD Act’), to which petitioner submitted explanation on 31.08.2021. Another provisional order dated 02.09.2021 was issued on behalf of respondent No. 2 for which explanation was submitted on 06.09.2021. Later confirmation order, dated 28.10.2021, impugned in this writ petition was issued. Assailing the same, the above writ petition is filed. 3. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. It was contended, inter alia, that the building permission and other relevant documents filed by the petitioner are fake and fabricated documents. The name and other information on those papers were altered. The petitioner has not produced any documents in response to notice issued by respondent No. 3. To the provisional notice dated 02.09.2021, petitioner submitted explanation on 06.09.2021. However, the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause. Therefore, respondent No. 2 issued confirmation order dated 28.10.2021. (b) Building permission, dated 15.02.2016 relied upon by the petitioner, appears to be tampered with. Respondent No. 3 also confirmed that no permissions were accorded to the petitioner. 4. Separate counter affidavit was filed by respondent No. 3. It was contended, inter alia, that the petitioner constructed commercial complex without obtaining permission. Therefore, the Gram Panchayat, issued notice dated 24.04.2021, asking the petitioner to produce documents, regarding commercial complex constructed by her. In response, the petitioner submitted a reply on 26.04.2021 requesting time to submit explanation. Since there is no response from the petitioner another notice dated 02.08.2021 was issued. Therefore, the Gram Panchayat, issued notice dated 24.04.2021, asking the petitioner to produce documents, regarding commercial complex constructed by her. In response, the petitioner submitted a reply on 26.04.2021 requesting time to submit explanation. Since there is no response from the petitioner another notice dated 02.08.2021 was issued. Petitioner submitted an explanation on 10.08.2021 stating that petitioner secured all the required permissions. However, no document is produced for verification. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 furnished information to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 set the law into motion. Building permission dated 15.02.2016, is fabricated. The Gram Panchayat granted permission dated 15.02.2016 in favour of Markapurapu Venkateswarlu, pursuant to the resolution dated 29.01.2016. On verification of the records, it is found that receipt No. 8541 dated 15.02.2016, was issued in favour of Muvva China Bapi Reddy Memorial Trust Old Age Home. Petitioner, by erasing the original door number and names, mentioned the name of petitioner’s father. Petitioner constructed complex without obtaining permission. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Respondent No. 4 filed counter affidavit. While contending with regard to filing W.P. Nos. 20735 of 2018 and 15880 of 2021, it was contended that petitioner said to have got title over the property through registered document executed on 29.07.2017. Hence, granting permission on 15.02.2016, in favour of petitioner does not arise. As per said document, there was no building, and it was an asbestos sheet shed. In fact, Gram Panchayat is not competent to issue any permission for commercial buildings and CRDA is the competent authority to grant permission for construction of commercial buildings. The construction was completed by the end of 2018, but not in 2016-17. Petitioner is liable to be punished for obtaining interim order by using fabricated documents. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Respondent No. 4 also filed I.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2022 to initiate criminal contempt and to direct prosecution against the petition for obtaining interim order by using forged documents and making false statements. 7. Petitioner filed rejoinders for the counters filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, with similar contentions as pleaded in the writ affidavit. It was contended that petitioner constructed building by obtaining permission. After a lapse of more than six years, impugned notice was issued by respondent No. 2, without any valid reasons and without considering petitioner’s explanation dated 06.09.2021. 7. Petitioner filed rejoinders for the counters filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, with similar contentions as pleaded in the writ affidavit. It was contended that petitioner constructed building by obtaining permission. After a lapse of more than six years, impugned notice was issued by respondent No. 2, without any valid reasons and without considering petitioner’s explanation dated 06.09.2021. Petitioner denied the contention of the respondents that she did not produce relevant documents either before respondent No. 2 or respondent No. 3. In fact, the petitioner filed all the documents pertaining to the building permission along with W.P. No. 40170 of 2018. Respondent No. 2 is estopped from making such allegations at a belated stage. 8. Similar reply was filed to the counter filed by respondent No. 4. 9. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri G. Suryam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 2; Sri G. Venkat Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 3 and Sri Ugra Narasimha, learned counsel representing Sri Souri Babu Duppati, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 10. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, would contend that building was constructed after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat and there are no deviations. He would also submit that in the writ petition filed in the year, 2018 all the documents were filed, and the writ petition was disposed of on 09.11.2018. He submits that petitioner submitted explanation to the provisional notice. However, without considering the explanation properly, a non speaking order was passed by respondent No. 2. He would also submit that at the behest of unofficial respondent, litigation was started. 11. Learned standing counsel, Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy and Sri G. Venkat Reddy, on the other hand would contend that Exs.P2 and P3 were fabricated by the petitioner. Learned standing counsel for respondent No. 3 produced records maintained by the office with regard to the subject documents, before this Court. Learned counsel would further submit that the authority on a careful consideration of explanation passed order. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 while adopting the arguments of learned standing counsel, submitted that petitioner has to be prosecuted for obtaining interim order by using forged and fabricated documents and making false statements. Learned counsel would further submit that the authority on a careful consideration of explanation passed order. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 while adopting the arguments of learned standing counsel, submitted that petitioner has to be prosecuted for obtaining interim order by using forged and fabricated documents and making false statements. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on decisions reported in K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 481 and Dinesh Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2024 SCC Online SC 34. 13. The point for consideration is: (1) Whether the proceedings impugned are liable to be set aside? (2) Whether Exs.P2 and P3, xerox copies, filed along with the writ petition are fabricated? (3) Whether the petitioner approached this court with unclean hands? 14. As per the pleadings on record, the petitioner, by placing reliance on Exs.P2 and P3, pleaded that she made the subject constructions pursuant to the permission granted by Gram Panchayat. On the other, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents is that Exs.P2 and P3 are fabricated documents. In view of the discrepancy, this Court, by order dated 10.01.2024 directed learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat to produce original record regarding Resolution No. 146/6 dated 29.01.2016 along with plan and agenda of the meeting. Accordingly, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat produced records. The records produced by the learned standing counsel were also perused by the learned senior counsel as well as assisting counsel, appearing for the petitioner. 15. This Court perused Ex.P2 filed at page No. 18 of the writ petition and copy of the same, maintained by the Gram Panchayat. Ex P.2 filed by the petitioner stood in the name of Bellamkonda Seshagiri Rao S/o Veeraiah. There is overwriting at the date below the signature of Panchayat Secretary. A perusal of Ex.P2, produced by learned standing counsel, would disclose that permission was granted in favour of Markapurapu Venkateswarlu S/o Anjaneyulu, for construction of ground plus first floors in D. No. 1-304, Pedaparimi Village, Thulluru Mandal, Guntur District, as per resolution No. 146/6 dated 29.01.2016. The said proceedings were signed by Panchayat Secretary on 15.02.2016. There is no overwriting qua the date. 16. Learned standing counsel, further produced receipt book and cash book pertaining to February 2016. The said proceedings were signed by Panchayat Secretary on 15.02.2016. There is no overwriting qua the date. 16. Learned standing counsel, further produced receipt book and cash book pertaining to February 2016. A perusal of said books would disclose that said Markapurapu Venkateswarlu paid Rs.3,140/- vide receipt No. 41286 dated 10.02.2016 and as per the cash book, said amount was paid towards building fee. 17. Original Building Regularization Collection Register, Pedaparimi village is also produced before this Court. As seen from the said register, Markapurapu Venkateswarlu paid Rs.3,140/- vide receipt No. 41286 dated 10.02.2016 and the resolution number was mentioned as 146/6 dated 29.01.2016. 18. Learned standing counsel also produced original Agenda and Resolution Books/Registers. The agenda register would disclose that a meeting was convened on 29.01.2016 and one of the agenda is to consider the application for permissions granted for construction of houses. As per resolution book, resolution No. 146/6 was passed for granting permission to Markapurapu Venkateswarlu. 19. Thus, prima facie, this court is of the opinion that building permission was granted in favour of Markapurapu Venkateswarulu but not in favour of Sri Bellamkonda Seshagiri Rao. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner filed xerox copies only, which were not even attested as required under Writ Proceedings Rules 1977. 20. This Court also perused the receipt book relating to Ex.P3, produced by learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat. Carbon copy in the receipt book would disclose that against receipt No. 8541 dated 15.02.2016, amount was paid on behalf of Muvva China Bapi Reddy Memorial Trust Old Age Home. As per the cash book an amount of Rs.20,200/- was paid to CRDA by way of D.D. No. 729860 dated 14.03.2017. The carbon copy of the receipt does not contain the date as well as house number. Whereas, in the copy of Ex.P3, filed along with the writ petition, the name of one Bellamkonda Seshagiri Rao, S/o Veeraiah is mentioned and it contains house number and date. 21. Thus, this Court, prima facie, is satisfied that Exs.P2 and P3 filed by the petitioner are fabricated for the purpose of filing writ petition. 22. In fact, this Court, by order dated 12.01.2024, directed/permitted the petitioner to produce originals of Ex.P2/plan and Exs.P3/receipt filed along with the writ petition. However, same could not be filed even today. 21. Thus, this Court, prima facie, is satisfied that Exs.P2 and P3 filed by the petitioner are fabricated for the purpose of filing writ petition. 22. In fact, this Court, by order dated 12.01.2024, directed/permitted the petitioner to produce originals of Ex.P2/plan and Exs.P3/receipt filed along with the writ petition. However, same could not be filed even today. This instance makes the thing more than discernible that Exs.P2 and P3 are fabricated for the purpose of filing writ petition. 23. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that Exs.P2 and P3 were filed in earlier writ petition and the said writ petition was disposed of. It is not the case of the counsel that originals were filed in the earlier writ petition and hence xerox copies are filed in the present writ petition. 24. It is settled law that that a person approaching the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should do so with clean hands and without suppressing material facts. If there is suppression of facts, the Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without going into merits of the matter. Filing fabricated documents also would amount to suppression of fact. 25. In Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. and Others, 2013 (2) SCC 398 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed about suppression of facts and parties coming to the Court with unclean hands. The relevant part is extracted hereunder: (i) Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with ‘unclean hands’. Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor entitled to any relief. (ii) The people, who approach the Court for relief on an ex-parte statement, are under a contract with the court that they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant. (iii) The obligation to approach the Court with clean hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by this Court. (iv) Quests for personal gains have become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood and misrepresent and suppress facts in the court proceedings. (iii) The obligation to approach the Court with clean hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by this Court. (iv) Quests for personal gains have become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood and misrepresent and suppress facts in the court proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent have over-shadowed the old ethos of litigative values for small gains. (v) 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. (vi) The Court must ensure that its process is not abused and in order to prevent abuse of the process the court, it would be justified even in insisting on furnishing of security and in cases of serious abuse, the Court would be duty bound to impose heavy costs.........” 26. The Apex Court further observed as under: “The party not approaching the Court with clean hands would be liable to be non-suited and such party, who has also succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently false statements, cannot claim relief, especially under Article 136 of the Constitution. While approaching the court, a litigant must state correct facts and come with clean hands.....” 27. In K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others, referred to supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: 38..........As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play “hide and seek” or to “pick and choose” the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because “the court knows law but not facts.” 39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because “the court knows law but not facts.” 39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs. (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA) is kept in mind, an applicant 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 not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court. 28. In Dinesh Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, referred to supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “Unscrupulous litigants should not be allowed to go scot-free. They should be put to strict terms and conditions including costs. It is time to check with firmness such litigation initiated and laced with concealment, falsehood, and forum hunting. Even State actions or conduct of government servants being party to such malicious litigation should be seriously reprimanded.......” 29. The High court of Andhra Pradesh framed Writ Proceedings Rules 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Writ Rules’) to regulate the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rule 6 (a) (1) of the Writ Rules, which is relevant, is extracted hereunder: 6 (a) (1) Every petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit and all the documents serially numbered as Ex.P-1, P-2 etc. including rules Bye-laws, notifications etc. Rule 6 (a) (1) of the Writ Rules, which is relevant, is extracted hereunder: 6 (a) (1) Every petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit and all the documents serially numbered as Ex.P-1, P-2 etc. including rules Bye-laws, notifications etc. relied upon by the petitioner and the order challenged or a certified copy thereof and copies of all documents which shall be certified by the party filing it to be a true and correct copy of the original of such documents of it is not a certified copy. (Emphasis is mine) 30. A perusal of the Rule extracted supra would manifest that copies of documents filed shall be certified by the party to be true and correct copy of original of such documents, if the same is not certified copy. However, a practice has been developed, in recent days, that none of the parties certify the copies of documents filed, as true and correct. This anomaly can be avoided if the Registry while scrutinizing, insists adherence of the procedure contemplated under Rule 6(a) (1) of the Writ Proceedings Rules. 31. It is pertinent to mention here that in original side, normally the litigant files original copies before the Court and those would be marked as exhibits. In case original is not filed, the parties will seek aid of Section 65 of the Evidence Act to lead secondary evidence. 32. However, when it comes to this court except in case of writ of Certiorari, only xerox copies are being filed. Even for D-form pattas, Pattadar Pass Books, Title Deeds, Tax Receipts, xerox copies are being filed without certification from the party. If certification is made by the party, in case, if such document is held to be either fake or fabricated, the Court will initiate necessary proceedings. In the counter affidavits filed by the government, the deponents are pleading that the D-pattas, PPB and TD, possession certificates filed by the parties are fake and fabricated. 33. In view of the same, the registry shall take necessary steps, at the time of scrutiny, to ensure compliance of Rule 6(a) (1) of the Writ Rules in its letter and spirit. 34. Even in the case at hand as seen from the xerox copies filed along with the writ petition, no such certification is made by the party. 35. In view of the same, the registry shall take necessary steps, at the time of scrutiny, to ensure compliance of Rule 6(a) (1) of the Writ Rules in its letter and spirit. 34. Even in the case at hand as seen from the xerox copies filed along with the writ petition, no such certification is made by the party. 35. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, as stated supra, petitioner approached this Court with unclean hands, suppressing material facts and by filing fabricated documents. Since the petitioner secured interim order by filing, prima facie, fabricated documents and, also consumed precious judicial time, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 36. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/- payable by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, within three weeks from today. If the amount is not paid, the High Court Legal Services Committee shall recover the amount from the writ petitioner, treating the order as decree. 37. Though this Court came to the prima facie conclusion that Exs.P2 and P3 are fabricated, further evidence is required to initiate criminal contempt and prosecution. However, since the writ petition is dismissed with costs, this Court deems it appropriate to close I.A. Nos.3 and 4. Accordingly, I.A. Nos. 3 and 4 are closed. 38. The Registry shall communicate copy of order to the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi as well as writ petitioner to the address shown in the writ affidavit. 39. Copy of the order shall be communicated to the Registrar (Judicial) for taking necessary steps. 40. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.