r APHC010359742024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NOS: 18271 OF 2024 AND 1198 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO: 18271 OF 2024 Between: Smt.Digupati Lakshmi @ Urjana Laksnmi,, Aged about 45 years, D/o Babu Rao, 6-14,Peda Peta, Pandithavilluru (vai) Marteru, Poduru Mandal, West Godawari District, Andhra Pradesh- 534122 ...Petitioner AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Rep.by Secretary, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Rep.by Chairman and Managing Director, Mumbai-400020. 3. The General manager. M/s Hindustan Petrolium Corporation Limited, South Central Zone - LPG 3rd Floor, Right Wing, Lie Jeevan Samriahi Buildings Tikkanna Road, Visakhapatnam- 53004 4. The Dy General Manager LPG Region, M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Visakha LPG RO, HP Petro Park, Port Connectivity Road, Visakhapatnam - 530014. Petroleum House, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action, things and deeds of the respondents in not finalizing the LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas) Distributorship at Amalapuram Area of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District inspite of fulfilling all the requirements as per the advertisement and guidelines for selection of regular LPG Distributors August 2013 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles, 14,19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to finalize the LPG Distributorship (HPCL) of Amalapuram Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District in favour of the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in view of the letter dated 12.07.2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DASARI S VV S V PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: M/s M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: SRI V R REDDY KOWURI APHC010022962025 WRIT PETITION NO: 1198 OF 2025 Between: 1. Smt.Digupati Lakshmi @ Urjana Laksnmi,, Aged about 45 years, D/o Babu Rao, 6-14,Peda Peta, Pandithavilluru (vai) Marteru.Poduru Mandal, West / Godawari District, Andhra Pradesh- 534122 ...Petitioner AND The Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Rep.by Secretary, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Rep.by Chairman and Managing Director, Petroleum House, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400020. The General manager. M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, South Central Zone - LPG 3rd Floor, Right Wing, Lie Jeevan Samriahi Buildings Tikkanna Road, Visakhapatnam- 53004 The Dy General Manager LPG Region, M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Visakha LPG RO, HP Petro Park, Port Connectivity Road, Visakhapatnam - 530014. 1. 2. 3. 4. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of the respondents in cancelling the award of LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas) Distributorship at Amalapuram Area of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District dated 10.12.2024 in Ref- PS/VLRO, For Serial No. 12604/127/023 is violation of advertisement and guidelines for selection of regular LPG Distributors August 2013 and also is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles, 14,19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India consequently set-aside the direct the respondents to finalize the LPG Distributorship (HPCL) of Amalapuram, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District in favor of petitioner and pass such other order or orders in the circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents not to allot the LPG Distributorship (HPCL) of Amalapuram, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District pending disposal of the above writ petition. ^ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DASARI S VV S V PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRI JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: SRI V R REDDY KOWURI The Court made the following Common order: APHC010359742024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 18271 of 2024 & 1198 of 2025 WRIT PETITION NO: 18271/2024 Between: 1.SMT.DIGUPATI LAKSHMI @ URJANA LAKSNMI,, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. D/0 BABU RAO, 6-14,PEDA PETA, PANDITHAVILLURU (VAI) MARTERU.PODURU MANDAL, WEST GODAWARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 534122 ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS REP.BY SECRETARY, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2.THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, REP.BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, PETROLEUM HOUSE, 17 JAMSHEDJITATA ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. 3.THE GENERAL MANAGER, M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLIUM CORPORATION LIMITED, SOUTH CENTRAL ZOME - LPG 3RD FLOOR, RIGHT WING TIKKANNA ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM- 53004 LIE JEEVAN SAMRIAHI BUILDINGS 4.THE DY GENERAL MANAGER LPG REGION. M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, VISAKHA LPG RO, HP PETRO PARK. PORT CONNECTIVITYROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530014. ...RESPONDENT(S): SRS.J W.P,Nos.18271 of 2024 & 1198 of 2025 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action, things and deeds of the respondents in not finalizing the LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas) Distributorship at Amalapuram Area of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District in spite of fulfilling all the requirements as per the advertisement and guidelines for selection of regular LPG Distributors August 2013 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles, 14,19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to finalize the LPG Distributorship (HPCL) of Amalapuram Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District in favour of the petitioner and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in view of the letter dated 12.07.2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DASARI S VV S V PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2.VR REDDY KOWURI WRIT PETITION NO: 1198/2025 Between: 1.SMT.DIGUPATI LAKSHMI @ URJANA LAKSNMI,, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/O BABU RAO, 6-14,PEDA PETA, PANDITHAVILLURU (VAI) MARTERU.PODURU MANUAL, WEST GODAWARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 534122 ...PETITIONER AND ■ \ ' SRS,J W.P.Nos.18271 of 2024 & 1198 of 2025 1.THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PFTROLFUM AND NATURAL GAS, RFP.BY SECRETARY, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2.THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, REP.BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, PETROLEUM HOUSE, 17 JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. 3.THE GENERAL MANAGER, M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLIUM CORPORATION LIMITED, SOUTH CENTRAL ZOME - LPG 3RD FLOOR, RIGHT WING TIKKANNA ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM- 53004 LIE JEEVAN SAMRIAHI BUILDINGS 4.THE DY GENERAL MANAGER LPG REGION, . PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, VISAKHA LPG RO, HP PETRO PARK, PORT CONNECTIVITY ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530014. M/S HINDUSTAN ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of the respondents in cancelling tbe award of LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas) Distributorship at Amalapuram Area of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District dated 10.12.2024 in Ref- PSA/LRO, For Serial No. 12604/127/023 is violation of advertisement and guidelines for selection of regular LPG Distributors August 2013 and also is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles, 14,19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India consequently set-aside the direct the respondents to finalize the LPG Distributorship (HPCL) of Amalapuram, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District in favor of petitioner and pass such other order or orders in the circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitionerand pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents not to allot the LPG Distributorship (HPCL) of Amalapuram, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass SRS.J W.P.Nos 18271 of 2024 & 1198 of 2025 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DASARI S VV S V PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 2.VR REDDY KOWURI The Court made the following: :: COMMON ORDER :: Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are interconnected, the writ petitions are disposed of by way of a common order. Impugning the letter issued by respondent No.4 vide Ref: PSA/LRO, dated 12.07.2024, in not accepting the petitioner’s request for extension of time to submit the documents for change of land for commissioning of LPG distributorship, W.P.No.18271 of 2024 has been filed. 2. 3. Cancelling the candidature of the petitioner, in pursuance of awarding the LPG Distributorship at Amalapuram, of Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, under SC category, advertised on 15.09.2013, by letter in Ref: PSA/LRO, dated 10.12.2024, W.P.No.1198 of 2025 has been filed. 4. The facts, in brief, are that: (a) M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation (HPCL) called for applications through a paper advertisement in Deccan Chronicle dated 15,09.2013 and other newspapers. The petitioner applied, and the application was assigned serial number 12604/127/023. The petitioner's application was shortlisted along with 13 other candidates. The draw was conducted on 23.02.2023. The application of the petitioner was selected. By letters dated 24.02.2023 and 15.03.2023, the petitioner was directed to send Rs.25,000/- SRS.J W.P.Nos.18271 of 2024 & 1198 of 2025 by way of a demand draft. Accordingly, the petitioner sent Rs.25,000/- on 18.03.2023 and receipt of the same was confirmed on 28.03.2023. The petitioner attended for physical verification of the certificates/documents at the Regional Office, Visakhapatnam, i.e. Field Verification of Credentials (hereinafter referred to as ‘FVC’). After FVC, the physical verification of the proposed site for distributorship showroom and godown was attempted on 26.08.2023 at Amalapuram. Before 26.08.2023, since there was no cooperation from the Revenue Officials, the physical verification was not done. On 28.11.2023, the FVC was conducted by the Sales Officer, the competent authority. (b) The petitioner got registered two separate lease deeds on 11.11.2013 vide document No.4892/2013 for godown and document No.4724/2013 for showroom, for 15 years. The landowners of the said executed lease deeds i.e. Yalla Balarama Swamy Naidu and Tummuri Lakshmi Kantham, died. However, the legal representatives have not cancelled the documents. (c) On 21.02.2024, when the authorities visited the site to conduct FVC, the legal representatives of the executants were not interested in executing a supplementary agreement to extend the time. By letter dated 29.05.2024, it was informed to the petitioner that the FVC was done on 28.06.2023 and 28.11.2023 by Area Sales Manager, Kakinada and found that the legal heirs of the original land owners declined to extend the lease period for godown and showroom, directed to provide an alternative site, within 20 days. By letter dated 17.06.2024, the petitioner requested time for 35 to 40 days to find suitable land. The respondent authorities directed the petitionerto attend the Regional Office, Visakhapatnam, on 09.07.2024. The petitioner attended and explained, and requested 10 days to secure the registered lease agreements for the alternative site. (d) SRS,J W.P.Nos.18271 of 2024 & 1198 of 2025 The lessor by name, Garapati Mani Kumari, fell sick and hospitalised, and the process to get the registered document was delayed, though an agreement was entered into on 11.07.2024, due to a server down in the Registration Department. The registration was completed on 16.07.2024 vide document No. 12967/2024. The petitioner made a representation dated 25.07.2024 to accept the lease and to conduct FVC in the alternative site. Respondent No.4 addressed a letter dated 12.07.2024, declining to extend the time and the same was received by the petitioner on 19.07.2024. The petitioner filed W.P.No. 18271 of 2024 on 17.08.2024. Pending the writ petition, respondent No.4 cancelled the petitioner’s candidature. Impugning the same, W.P.No.1198 of 2025 has been filed. (e) was Two separate counter affidavits are filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 in both the writ petitions. A counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.1198 of 2024 is a comprehensive one, and hence, the contents of the same are being noted. In the counter affidavit, it was contended, inter alia, that respondent No.2 issued an advertisement for LPG distributorship in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh vide newspaper notification dated 15.09.2013, in Sr.No.127, Amalapuram location, under SC category. The advertisement was affected by a series of litigations. The dealership selection process was restarted in 2022. 5. (a) (b) A call letter dated 01.02.2023 was issued to the petitioner to attend the drawal of lots, scheduled on 23.02.2023. In the draw of lots, the petitioner was provisionally selected. A letter dated 24.02.2023, was issued to the petitioner, informing selection and further directing the petitioner to deposit a non-refundable security deposit of Rs.25,000/-, for taking up the FVC, based on the documents submitted by the petitioner along with an application. A reminder letter 15.03.2023 was also sent to the petitioner. Thereafter, the SRS.J W.P.Nos.18271 of 2024 & 1198 of 2025 petitioner submitted a demand draft and the same was acknowledged by the Corporation vide letter dated 28.03.2023. The FVC has to be carried out promptly as per Clause No. 10 of the applicable Dealer Selection Guidelines i.e. Brochure of May, 2013. (c) (d) The petitioner did not come forward for FVC, despite the letters addressed dated 24.02.2023, 15.03.2023 & 28.03.2023, respectively. The petitioner approached the Tahsildar vide letter dated 09.06.2023, requesting the presence of the VRO and the Surveyor for FVC and the same was not successful. The petitioner requested the FIPCL by letter dated 19.06.2023 to write a letter to the Tahsildar. As per the request of the petitioner, the Corporation issued a letter dated 13.07.2023 to the Office of Tahsildar, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, and the FVC has lined up on 26.08.2023. The petitioner failed to mobilise the VRO and the Surveyor. The FVC was conducted on 28.11.2023 in the presence of the petitioner and the Surveyor. The petitioner could not get a confirmatory letter from VRO/Surveyor, and the FVC was not conducted until March 2024, for want of a confirmation letter. An opportunity was provided to the petitioner till March 2024, for submission of valid documents and to complete the FVC procedure. Sufficient time was provided to the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation dated 18.02.2024, requesting the Corporation to extend the time to secure an alternative site for the godown and showroom. Thereafter, the Corporation extended time for 20 days, as per the guidelines, by letter dated 29.05.2024. The petitioner once again, by letter dated 17.06.2024, requested time for 35 to 40 days. The petitioner was called for a meeting at the Regional Office on 09.07.2024 and provided an opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay. The petitioner failed to justify the same and requested 10 more days. The Corporation, by letter dated 12.07.2024, informed the petitioner about the non- consideration of his request. SRS,J W.P.Nos.18271 of2024&1198 of 2025 The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a representation dated 13.07.2024, seeking information about the intercompany transfer of connections. A reply was sent on August 8, 2024. Thirteen other applicants are available for the draw. The candidature of the petitioner cannot be considered and thus prayed to dismiss to the writ petition. (e) 6. Heard Sri B. Majid, learned counsel for representing Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondents 2 to 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 reiterated the arguments as per the averments made in the writ affidavit and counter affidavit. 7. 8. The points for consideration are; 1. Whether the non-extension of time by the letter dated 12.07.2024 suffers from any illegality? 2. Whether the cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner by letter dated 10.12.2024 suffers from any illegality? Consideration: 9. As seen from the pleadings, respondent No.2 advertised for LPG distributorship by a notification dated 15.09.2013. For various reasons, the selection process could not be completed till January 2023. A call letter dated 01.02.2023 was issued to the petitioner to attend the drawal of lots, scheduled on 23.02.2023. The petitioner was informed about the provisional selection by letter dated 24.02.2023. Thus, in pursuance of the paper advertisement dated 15.09.2013, the petitioner was informed about the provisional selection on 24.02.2023 i.e. after lapse of 9 1/2 years. The petitioner submitted registered lease deeds dated 11.11.2013 for 15 years. 15 SRS.J W.P. Nos. 18271 of 2024 & 1198 of 2025 The time frame for the selection process, as per the schedule fixed by the Corporation, is 140 days from the date of the advertisement. This Court noticed the same at page No.28 of the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.1198 of 2025. The FVC are of two types, one is physical document verification and the other is physical site verification. 10. The petitioner addressed a letter dated 19.06.2023 to respondent No.4, and the same was received by the Corporation on 24.06.2023. A perusal of the letter would reveal that the Revenue Officials are hesitant to visit the site. The Tahsildar informed that, as per the Government Rules, HPCL has to request the office of the MRO. In pursuance of the said letter, respondent No.4 addressed a letter vide Ref:ASVA/LRO, dated 13.07.2023, to the Office of the Tahsildar, Amalapuram, requesting to carry out the FVC. Thereafter, FVC was conducted on 28.11.2023. 11. In para No. 17 of the counter affidavit, it was contended that the petitioner could not obtain a confirmation letter from the VRO/Surveyor during the Field Verification Credentials (FVC), and as a result, the FVC could not be completed until March 2024. The petitioner addressed a letter dated 18.02.2024 to respondent No.4, informing the authority about the death of the lessors and that the lease period will be completed in the year 2028; the legal heirs are not willing to execute a supplementary lease deed and hence, requested to establish the outlet in the alternative land. Respondent No.4, by letter dated 29.05.2024, granted 20 days. The petitioner, immediately, on 17.06.2024, addressed a letter to respondent No.4 and sought 35 to 40 days to find a suitable site. Thereafter, the petitioner got registered a lease deed of another premises on 16.07.2024 vide document No. 12967/24 for 15 years. According to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.Q7.2024, requesting the authority to accept the lease and also to conduct FVC in the alternative site. There is a dispute regarding this letter. 12. Page 10 of 15 SRS.J W.P.Nos.18271 of 2024 & 1198 of 2025 13. In para No.20 of the counter affidavit, it was specifically stated about the representation made by the petitioner dated 13.07.2024, seeking information about the intercompany transfer connections and the same was received by the Corporation on 20.07.2024; and a reply sent to the said letter dated 08.08.2024; and thereafter, no representation from the petitioner was received. The petitioner, having pleaded regarding the sending of a representation dated 25.07.2024, about the registered lease deed 16.07.2024, conveniently failed to file the same along with the writ petition. Despite a specific plea in the counter affidavit about non-communication of the letter dated 25.07.2024, the petitioner failed to file the relevant document, even along with a rejoinder. on Thus, the aforementioned instance made things more than discernible that the petitioner did not inform the Corporation regarding the second lease deed. It is pertinent to mention here that the letter addressed by the petitioner to respondent No.4 dated 13.07.2024, received by respondent No.4 20.07.2024, wherein the petitioner mentioned about the meeting held on 09.07.2024 and rejecting the petitioner’s request to extend the time, and further directing the subordinates to cancel the offer made to the petitioner. In the same letter, the petitioner requested the authorities to furnish the information regarding the intercompany connections, etc. 14. on Thus, the petitioner is aware of the decision of respondent No.4 by 13.07.2024. Later, the petitioner got a registered lease deed on 16.07.2024. For the reasons best known, the petitioner did not inform the authorities about the second lease deed. Thus, the petitioner attempted to mislead the Court by making a false statement under oath. Hence, this Court believes that the petitioner came to the Court with unclean hands. 15. SRS,J W.P.Nos.18271 of 2024 & 1198 of 2025 The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramjas Foundation and another v. Union of India and others\ in para Nos.21 to 24 observed as follows: 16. “21. The principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect Itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of Justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising In the case. 22. In Dalglish v. Jarvle^, Mac & G at p.238. Lord Langdale and Rolfe, B. observed: (ER p.89) “It is the duty of a party asking for an injunction to bring under the notice of the court all facts material to the determination of his right to that injunction; and it Is no excuse for him to say that he was not aware of the importance of any fact which he has omitted to bring forward. ’’ 23. In Castelll v. Cook^, Hare at p.94, Wigram, V.C. stated the rule in the following words: (ER p.38) "... a plaintiff applying ex parte comes ... under a contract with the court that he will state the whole case fully and fairly to the court. If he fails to do that, and the court finds, when the other party applies to dissolve the Injunction, that any material fact has been suppressed or not properly brought forward, the (2010) U see 38 ^ (1850) 2 Mac & G 231 ; 42 ER 89 ^ (1849) 7 Hare 89: 68 ER 36 SRS.J W.P.Nos.18271 of2024 &1198 of 2025 plaintiff is told that the court will not decide on the merits, and that, as he has broken faith with the court, the injunction must go- 24. In Republic of Peru v. Dreyfus Bros. & Co.^, LT at p. 803, Kay, J. held as under: “I have always maintained, and I think it most important to maintain most strictly, the rule that, in ex parte applications to this Court, the utmost good faith must be observed. If there is an important misstatement, speaking for myself, I have never hesitated, and never shall hesitate until the rule is altered, to discharge the order at once, so as to impress upon all persons who are suitors In this Court the importance of dealing in good faith in the Court when ex parte applications are made. }}}} The Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Micro Hotel P. Ltd. v. M/s Hotel Torrento Limited and others®, at para No.20 observed as follows; 17. “20. Litigations in courts are won or lost mainly on facts more on law. Duty is cast on all the parties who appear in a court of law to place the correct facts so that the court can draw correct inferences which enable it reach a logical, reasonable and just conclusion. Wrong facts lead a Court to wrong reasoning and wrong conclusions. Duty is also cast on the Court to take note of the facts which are correctly placed. Wrong appreciation of facts leads to wrong reasoning and wrong conclusions and justice will be the casualty. Deciding disputes involves, according to Dias on Jurisprudence, knowing the facts, knowing the law applicable to those facts and knowing the just way of applying the law to them. If any of the above mentioned ingredients is not satisfied, one gets a wrong verdict. A Judge has to reason out truth from falsehood, good from evil which enables him to deduce inferences from facts or Ss LT802 ^ 2012 (10) SCJ 290 15 SRS,J W.P.Nos.18271 of 2024 & 1198 of 2025 propositions. Facts are correctly stated in the instant case but the Division Bench wrongly understood those facts and wrongly applied the law, consequently, wrong inferences were drawn and ultimately reached wrong conclusions. ” When the petitioner sought more days, respondent No.4 intimated that it is not acceptable, since enough time was given to the petitioner from the date of 23.02.2023. It is also pertinent to mention here that respondent No.4 informed the petitioner by letter dated 29.05.2024, giving 20 days to provide an alternative site. However, the petitioner got a registered lease deed for an alternative site on 16.07.2024, and the same was not communicated. In fact, the Corporation followed the procedure and granted 20 days to get an alternative land. 18. 19. Initially, at the request of learned Standing Counsel, the matter was adjourned to 29.08.2024. Thereafter, an interim order was passed, directing the respondents to proceed further in pursuance of the cancellation order dated 10.12.2024 regarding further selection, but not to issue either consequential or final selection proceedings, for two weeks. 20. Pending the above two writ petitions, the respondent authorities conducted a draw on 11.02.2025 and declared one S. Surya Prakash at Serial No. 12604/127/003, as selected candidates. Thus, the corporation proceeded further and conducted a draw and selected another person. 21. Generally, if a dispute arises from a purely contractual or business transaction, and the petitioner doesn't allege malafide actions or arbitrary conduct by the authority, the High Court may be hesitant to intervene under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. Article 226 grants High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and any other purpose. However, this power is discretionary, and courts often prefer that parties exhaust alternative remedies before approaching the High Court. SRS.J W.P.Nos.18271 of 2024 & 1198 of 2025 f,, Given the discussion supra, the petitioner approached the Court v\/ithout disclosing the correct facts regarding the communication dated 25.07.2024, regarding the new lease deed. The petitioner also did not file any rejoinder when it was specifically denied in the counter-affidavits regarding the new lease deed. As per the Guidelines, 20 days were provided to the petitioner for FVC; however, the petitioner could not get the required documents within 20 days. 22. 23. Hence, this Court does not find any irregularities on the part of the Corporation. There are no merits in the writ petitions, and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 24. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K.KASI RAO ACHAR! ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFJCER To, 1. One CC to Sri. Dasari S VV S V Prasad Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to M/s M Uma Devi (Central Govt Counsel) [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. V R Reddy Kovvuri Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. Jupudi V K Yagnadutt (Central Government Counsel) Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED;15/07/2025 COMMON ORDER WP NOS. 18271 OF 2024 AND 1198 OF 2025 M 2 I AUG 2025 Sectioiix^> o\ Co DISMISSING THE WPS WITHOUT COSTS