ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.Ramagopal, learned counsel for the 7 th respondent, and Ms.Iswarya, learned junior standing counsel for respondents 2 to 6. 2. The above writ petition has been filed to declare the action of respondents 2 to 6 in neither implementing the order in C.G.No.138 of 2023 on the file of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam, nor terminating of the power supply to service connection bearing SC No.1113300509000567, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The affidavit was deposed by the son as the General Power of Attorney holder. In the affidavit, it was contended that the deponent?s mother gave a complaint to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (For short “CGRF”), APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam, for disconnection of the power supply to the service connection bearing No.SC No.1113300509000567 on 03.12.2022, since the authorities failed to initiate any action. The same was numbered as C.G.No.138 of 2023. The authority allowed the complaint on 11.05.2023. Despite the order of the CGRF, the power to the service connection to SC No.1113300509000567 was not disconnected. Hence, the writ petition was filed. 4. The writ petition was initially listed on 25.02.2025; thereafter, on 03.03.2025, an interim order was granted directing the respondents 3 to 6 to implement the order dated 11.05.2023 in C.G.No.138 of 2023 and report the compliance. Accordingly, the authorities disconnected the power supply to the SC No.1113300509000567. 5. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the 7 th respondent. It was contended inter alia, that civil suits O.S.Nos.85 of 2014, 461 and 462 of 2015 were filed seeking partition of the schedule properties therein. Since there was a compromise, the aforementioned suits were referred to the Lok Adalat at Gajuwaka. An Award dated 26.06.2022 was passed vide LAC No.228 of 2022. 6. As per the Award, the 7 th respondent in the writ petition shifted the Flour Mill to the premises bearing House Plot No.2077 bearing House No.30-17-5 having service connection SC No.509/567. As per the terms of the Award, the 7 th respondent paid Rs.11.50 lakhs to the petitioners. Thereafter, E.P.No.73 of 2023 filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 19.08.2024 for default. The Flour mill was originally situated at Plot No.2091, House No.30-17-5, and the same was shifted to House Plot No.2077 in pursuance of the permission granted by the Executive Officer, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam. 7. Thereafter, E.P.No.73 of 2023 filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 19.08.2024 for default. The Flour mill was originally situated at Plot No.2091, House No.30-17-5, and the same was shifted to House Plot No.2077 in pursuance of the permission granted by the Executive Officer, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam. 7. Learned counsel for the 7 th respondent would submit that the Flour Mill was shifted to the premises bearing house Plot No.2077, House No.30-17-5 after the order dated 11.05.2023 in C.G.No.138 of 2023. The petitioners are aware of the said fact; however, not disclosed the same in the writ affidavit. 8. No rejoinder was filed to the counter-affidavit filed by the 7 th respondent. 9. Thus, as seen from the pleadings, there is no dispute regarding the Award dated 26.06.2022 passed by the Lok Adalat vide LAC No.228 of 2022 in the aforementioned civil suits. 10. As per Clause No.4 of the terms and conditions of compromise, both the parties agreed that the existing flour mill bearing Dr.No.30-17-5 which is in three rooms building shall be removed within 30 days and that mill shall be established by the 1 st plaintiff (7 th respondent herein) in his premises which will be gifted by the 1 st respondent. 11. In pursuance of the Lok Adalat Award, the 7 th respondent made an application seeking the shifting of service connection. The Executive Engineer, DPE Division, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam, accorded permission vide Lr.No.EE/DPE/VSP/F.No./D.No.—SPL-1/2023, dated 24.08.2023. 12. As narrated supra, the flour mill was shifted after the order dated 11.05.2023 in C.G.No.138 of 2023, before filing the writ petition. The petitioner is aware of the shifting of the flour mill to the petitioner's house Plot No.2077. Without disclosing the said fact, a material fact, the petitioner approached this Court with unclean hands. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of „suppresio veri suggestion falsi’. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others , (2008) 12 SCC 481 , observed as under: “ 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. 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, 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. 14. In Dalip Singh v. State of Utta Pradesh and Others , (2010) 2 SCC 114 , the Hon?ble Apex Court, considering the new creed of litigants, who are far away from the truth, observed as under: 1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. “satya” (truth) and “ahimsa” (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam 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, 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. 2. 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. 2. 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. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and another , (2013) 9 SCC 199 , considered concealment of facts before the Court and observed as under: 19. The second limb of the submission is whether in the obtaining factual matrix, the order passed by the High Court discharging the respondent-accused is justified in law. We have clearly stated that though the respondent was fully aware about the fact that charges had been framed against him by the learned trial Judge, yet he did not bring the same to the notice of the Revisional Court hearing the revision against the order taking cognizance. It is a clear case of suppression. It was within the special knowledge of the accused. Anyone who takes recourse to method of suppression in a court of law, is, in actuality, playing fraud upon the court, and the maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. We are compelled to say so as there has been a calculated concealment of the fact before the Revisional Court. It can be stated with certitude that the respondent-accused tried to gain advantage by such factual suppression. The fraudulent intention is writ large. In fact, he has shown his courage of ignorance and tried to play possum. 20. The High Court, as we have seen, applied the principle “when infrastructure collapses, the superstructure is bound to collapse”. However, as the order has been obtained by practicing fraud and suppressing material fact before a court of law to gain advantage, the said order cannot be allowed to stand. … 16 . 20. The High Court, as we have seen, applied the principle “when infrastructure collapses, the superstructure is bound to collapse”. However, as the order has been obtained by practicing fraud and suppressing material fact before a court of law to gain advantage, the said order cannot be allowed to stand. … 16 . Thus, as seen from the material and discussion, it amply proved that the petitioners approached this Court by concealing material facts, and hence, are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The petitioner abused the process of the Court. The petitioners shall be mulcted with sufficient costs. 17. Given the above discussion, this Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable by the petitioners to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Amaravati, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. If the petitioners fail to deposit/pay the costs, specified supra, it is open to the authority to recover the same by following the procedure. Since the power supply was disconnected vide proceedings Lr.No.AEEE-O/VAD, D.No.89/2025, dated 16.03.2023, in pursuance of the interim order, the 3 rd respondent shall restore the power supply to the service connection No.1113300509000567 Category-III, House Plot No.2077 bearing House No.30-17-5 in the name of M/s.Naga Pentamamba Flour Mill, Category-III, 27.96 HP forthwith. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.