Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 361 (AP)

B. Yerraji v. State Of A. P.

2025-02-25

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2025
ORDER : Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. Heard Sri P.Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners through virtual mode and Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred as ‘GVMC’), appearing for the 2 nd respondent. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Writ Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction to the respondent authorities for implementation of the order dated 20.07.2012 passed in O.A.No.5971 of 2012 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘Tribunal’) Hyderabad. 3. The Writ Petitioners were working as minimum time scale workers in the GVMC. They filed O.A.No.5971 of 2012 seeking release of periodical increments on revised pay scales of 2010, in view of the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal, in different O.As., and particularly in O.A.No.7915 of 2022, decided on 26.08.2002. 4. The Tribunal, passed order dated 20.07.2012 in O.A.No.5971 of 2012, which reads as under :- “13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and after going through the material available on record, I am satisfied that the issue involved in this O.A, is squarely covered by the and dated 26.08.2002 orders granted in O.A.No.7915/2002, O.A.No.7335/2010, dated 27.10.2010, and therefore, the present O.A., is also disposed of on similar lines as that of the O.A.No.7915/2002, dated 26.08.2002 and O.A.No.7335/2010, dated 27.10.2010.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the Tribunal has not been implemented though the same attained finality. 6. Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners did not approach this Court with clean hands. They suppressed the material facts, and therefore the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. He submits that the exercise of jurisdiction is not intended for such individuals who do not approach this Court with clean hands, placing reliance in Ramjas Foundation and Another V. Union of India and Others, (2010) 14 SCC 38 , Thatipamula Naresh Kumar V. State of Telangana, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 1099 and Kusha Duruka V. State of Odisha, (2024) 4 SCC 432 . 7. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 8. Facts not in dispute are as follows. 9. Initially, the petitioners filed C.A.No.1986 of 2013 in O.A.No.5971 of 2012, which was dismissed as barred by limitation, by order dated 10.09.2015. 7. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 8. Facts not in dispute are as follows. 9. Initially, the petitioners filed C.A.No.1986 of 2013 in O.A.No.5971 of 2012, which was dismissed as barred by limitation, by order dated 10.09.2015. The petitioners, later on filed M.A. No. 1835 of 2016, in E.A.SR No.9013 of 2016 in O.A., for condonation of delay in filing execution petition, after a delay of about four years. The M.A., was allowed, by order dated 11.01.2017, on the condition, that each petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the Andhra Pradesh Legal Services Authority within eight weeks, and in the event of non-compliance, the M.A., shall stand dismissed and E.A.SR., shall stand automatically rejected. 10. The order dated 11.01.2027 reads as under :- “In the circumstances stated in the Miscellaneous Application, the delay of four years, four months and ten days shall stand condoned on condition of the applicants 1 to 27 paying at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each to Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within a period of eight weeks from today; and in default, this Miscellaneous Application shall stand dismissed and the EASR shall stand rejected automatically.” 11. Challenging the order dated 11.01.2017, the petitioner filed W.P.No.32682 of 2017 before this Court. The Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioners, vide order dated 22.09.2017 after the petitioners' counsel made such request, though he had presented arguments at some length. 12. The order dated 22.09.2017 reads as under :- “This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: "... to issue Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by calling for the records in relating to orders passed in MA No.1835/2016 in EASR No.9013/2016 in OA No.5971/2012 dt. 11.01.2017 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and aside the same by declaring as illegal, arbitrary and set contrary to the rules and consequently, to direct the IGH COL respondents to release, the periodical increments to the petitioner from the date of release of time scale as it was done in the cases of similarly situated persons” After arguing the case, Mr. P.Suresh Reddy, counsel representing Mr. B.Bhaskar Reddy learned counsel for the petitioners, seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. P.Suresh Reddy, counsel representing Mr. B.Bhaskar Reddy learned counsel for the petitioners, seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. As sequel, WPMP.No.40642 of 2017 is dismissed as infructuous.” 13. The petitioners without disclosing the above facts filed the present W.P.No.44392 of 2018. It was previously allowed vide order dated 16.09.2019, directing the respondents to take action as per the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.5971 of 2012, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 14. The order dated 16.09.2019 remained uncomplied, so the petitioners filed Contempt Case No.401 of 2020. 15. The respondents herein filed Review I.A.No.1 of 2021, inter-alia submitting suppression of facts by the petitioners and no opportunity to file counter affidavit in W.P.No.44392 of 2018. The Review I.A.No.1 of 2021 was allowed by order dated 23.08.2024. The order dated 16.09.2019 was set aside and the present W.P.No.44392 of 2018 was restored to file for hearing. 16. The Contempt Case No.401 of 2020 was dismissed, however, leaving it open to take fresh steps if occasion so arose, if the writ petition allowed. 17. The present Writ Petition was filed without disclosing the aforesaid/relevant facts, rather suppressing those facts deliberately. We are saying so, deliberately, because the learned counsel for the writ petitioners herein was also the counsel for these petitioners, before the Tribunal in the proceedings mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the above facts, but tried to justify non-disclosure submitting that it was considered not relevant or necessary. 18. We are not satisfied with the aforesaid explanation or justification stated and we observe it is a very sorry state of affairs, to say the least. 19. We have gone through the order dated 22.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.32682 of 2017, which was got dismissed as withdrawn, after arguing at some length. This Court did not grant any liberty to file fresh writ petition. The proper course for the petitioners would have been, after dismissal of their W.P.No.32682 of 2017, to have complied with the order of the Tribunal dated 11.01.2017 in E.A.SR.No.9013 of 2016. But, they had chosen to file another writ petition, the present one, and that too, suppressing all the previous proceedings including dismissal of their W.P.No.32682 of 2017. The proper course for the petitioners would have been, after dismissal of their W.P.No.32682 of 2017, to have complied with the order of the Tribunal dated 11.01.2017 in E.A.SR.No.9013 of 2016. But, they had chosen to file another writ petition, the present one, and that too, suppressing all the previous proceedings including dismissal of their W.P.No.32682 of 2017. They also succeeded, as the present writ petition was initially allowed, which order however was subsequently reviewed, restoring this writ petition for hearing fresh. 20. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that a person who does not approach this Court with clean hands is not entitled for a relief. 21. In Ramjas Foundation and Another (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds 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. Paragraphs 27 & 28 read as under :- “27. On appeal, Lord Cozens-Hardy, M.R. and Warrington, L.J. approved the view taken by the Divisional Court. Scrutton, L.J. who agreed that the appeal should be dismissed observed: (Kensington cases, KB p. 514) “….and 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 full and fair disclosure of all the material facts-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 it, the court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement." 28. The above noted rules have been applied by this Court in a large number of cases for declining relief to a party whose conduct is blameworthy and who has not approached the Court with clean hands Hari Narain v. Badri Das, Welcom Hotel State of A.P., G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P., Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI, Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India, K.D. Sharma SAIL, G. Jayashree v. Patel and Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. Bhagwandas S.Patel and Dalip Singh V. State of U.P..” 22. In Thatipamula Naresh Kumar (supra), the High Court of Telangana observed that the applicant, who does not come with candid facts and clean freest cannot hold a writ of the Court with ‘soiled hands’. Paragraph No.10 reads as under :- “10. An applicant who does not come with candid facts and clean freest cannot hold a writ of the Court with 'soiled hands' suppression or concealment of material 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. (Kensington Income Tax Commrss).” 23. Recently, in Kusha Duruka Vs. State of Odisha, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to its previous pronouncements in K.D.Sharma Vs. Sail, in which, it was laid down in Paragraph No.3, as under :- “3. In K.D.Sharma V. Sail, it was observed by this Court : "39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs. 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. In K.D.Sharma V. Sail, it was observed by this Court : "39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs. 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, manoeuvring 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.” 24. The petitioners have abused the process of this Court. They did not approach this Court with clean hands and clean mind. They deliberately suppressed the material facts. Liberty was not granted to file fresh writ petition in dismissal of the previous writ petition. They are not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. The Writ Petition is also not maintainable, in view of dismissal of previous W.P.No.32682 of 2017, without any liberty granted to file fresh. 26. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.