IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAV (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No: 2173 OF 2025 Between: P.Charan Kumar, S/o. P.Bhaskar, aged 24 Years, Occ: Self Employment Tilak Road, APIIC Complex, Tirupati, Tirupati District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, Rep. by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, Director of Industries APIIC Ltd., Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 2. The Executive Director, APIIC Ltd., APIIC Towers, Plot No-1, IT Park, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The General Manager, APIIC Ltd., APIIC Towers, Plot No-1, IT Park, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 4. The Zonal Manager, APIIC Ltd., Tirupati, Tirupati District. 5. P.Srinadha Reddy, S/o P.Prathap Reddy, aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. D.No.19-13-107, Narayanapuram, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupati, Tirupati District. {R5 is impleaded as per the Court's Order dated: 24.04.2025 in I.A.No. 03 of 2025. In Writ Petition and Affidavit.) ...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 of the respondents in ? trying to dispossess the petitioner from the flower shop situated at APIIC Complex, Shop No.1 Municipal Market Road, 13'^ Ward, Tilak Road, Tirupati as, illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to disposses the petitioner from his flower shop without following due process of law. 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 to direct the respondent not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner i.e, flower shop situated at APIIC Complex, Shop No.1, Municipal Market Road, IS”" Ward, Tilak Road, Tirupati. lA No: 2 OF 2025 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, Rep. by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, Director of Industries APIIC Ltd., Mangalagiri, Guntur District. The Executive Director, APIIC Ltd., APIIC Towers, Plot No-1, IT Park, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. The General Manager, APIIC Ltd., APIIC Towers, Plot No-1, IT Park, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. The Zonal Manager, APIIC Ltd., Tirupati, Tirupati District. 1. 2. 3. 4. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 AND P.Charan Kumar, S/o. P.Bhaskar, aged 24 Years, Occ: Self Employment, Tilak Road, APIIC Complex, Tirupati, Tirupati District. ... RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER 1. ^ 2. P.Srinadha Reddy, S/o P.Prathap Reddy, aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. D.No.19-13-107, Narayanapuram, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupati, Tirupati District. ...RESPONDENTS (Proposed respondent is impleaded as per the Court's Order dated: 24.04.2025 in I.A.No. 03 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 to vacate the interim order dated 28-01-2025 passed in W.P No. 2173 of 2025. lA No: 4 OF 2025 Between: P.Srinadha Reddy, S/o P.Prathap Reddy, aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. D.No.19-13-107, Narayanapuram, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupati Tirupati District. ...IMPLEAD PETITIONER/PROPOSED RESPONDENT No.5 AND P.Charan Kumar, S/o. P.Bhaskar, aged 24 Years, Occ: Self Employment, Tilak Road, APIIC Complex, Tirupati, Tirupati District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, Rep. by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, Director of Industries APIIC Ltd., Mangalagiri, Guntur District. The Executive Director, APIIC Ltd., APIIC Towers, Plot No-1, IT Park, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. The General Manager, APIIC Ltd., APIIC Towers, Plot No-1, IT Park, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. The Zonal Manager, APIIC Ltd., Tirupati, Tirupati District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 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 vacate the interim stay granted on 28.01.2025 in W.P No.2173 of 2025, and dismiss the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SANDEEP REPRESENTING SRI PRATHIWADA VARUN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SMT. SHANTHI CHANDRA, SC FOR APIIC Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI N. SUBBA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL, ASSISTED BY SRI SURYA TEJA ANUMOLU The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010171012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) mi [3331] THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2173/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER P.Charan Kumar, AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PRATHIWADAVARUN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SANTHI CHANDRA SC For APIIC 2.SURYA TEJA ANUMOLU 3. The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri Sandeep, learned counsel representing Sri Prathiwada Varun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. Shanthi Chandra, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 4, and Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Surya Teja, learned counsel for respondent No.5. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents 1 to 4 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from flower shop, APIIC Complex, Shop No.1, Municipal Market Road, 13^^ Ward, Tilak Road, Tirupati, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. In the writ affidavit, it was pleaded that the petitioner has been running a business of making flower garlands and other flower decorations, in shop 3. SRS,J ^ W.P.No.2173 of 2025 No.1, APIIC Complex, Tirupathi, and he has been paying license, electricity bills, etc. Initially, the petitioner’s father started a flower shop in the year, 1998. The petitioner also obtained an establishment license in form ‘C’ from the Labour Department as per the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments . Act, 1988, and the same is valid up to 31.03.2027. While so, on 27.01.2025, respondent No.4 came to the subject shop along with the other persons and threatened to dispossess the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition. 4. An interim order was granted on 11.02.2025, and the same is being extended from time to time. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. It contended, inter alia, that an extent of Ac.00-48 cents of land in survey No.. 4044 and 4045 of Tirupathi Town has been alienated in favour of APIIC through G.O.Ms.No.1122 dated 01.07.1978. A commercial complex, consisting of ten shops each on the ground floor and cellar and two halls on the first floor, has been constructed in an area admeasuring 4795 square feet, . by leaving setbacks, all around the building. The APIIC, in turn, allotted shops and executed sale deeds in favour of allottees. Shop No.1 was allotted to Srinadha Reddy, respondent No.5, and his name was mutated. At the time of construction of the building plan, a setback of 10 feet on the southern side, 11’1” and passage to cellar floor on the western side, 11’8” on the Northern side and 15’9” on Eastern side, were left to the building and passage to cellar floor of APIIC Commercial Complex. Initially, shop No.1 was allotted to C. Venkatappa, S/o C. Mallappa, under registered sale deed dated 393/2001 dated 18.01.2001. The allottee, in turn, sold shop No.1 to A.S. Paari Shankar, S/o A.S. Subramanyam vide document No.572/2001 dated 12.02.2001. Subsequently, A.S. Paari Shankar sold the shop to respondent No.5 under registered sale deed No.5648/2002 dated 19.10.2022, and since then, - respondent No.5 has had the shop. The petitioner is a stranger and in no way concerned with the subject shop. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. was SRS,J W.P.No.2173of 2025 Respondent No.5 filed a separate counter-affidavit. It \A/as pleaded that apart from shop No.1, respondent No.5 also acquired the remaining shops under different sale deeds. Respondent No.5 also purchased the common areas and setback area from APIIC under two registered documents dated 05.12.2024. In fact, respondent No.5, leased out shop No.1 to Ganga Vummadi, and she is running a travel company. The petitioner is never in possession of Shop No.1 of APIIC complex. The entire complex is under the control of respondent No.5, and he intends to demolish and reconstruct the complex. The petitioner approached the Court with unclean hands. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. 7. No rejoinder is filed on behalf of the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contentions as per the averments in the writ affidavit, would submit that the petitioner has been carrying on a flower business, adjacent to shop No.1, on a road margin. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions as per the averments in the respective counter-affidavits. 9. Thus, as seen from the pleadings and material available on record, the petitioner is neither the owner nor the possessor of shop No.1 of APIIC Complex, Tirupathi. Even as per the photographs filed by the petitioner as well as respondents 1 to 4 and respondent No.5, the petitioner seems, have been running the flower business, by occupying road margin adjacent to shop No.1. The electricity bill filed as Ex.P2, stands in the name of respondent No.5. In the trade license (Ex.P1.) filed by the petitioner, the address shown as Shop No.1, APIIC Complex, TUDA Office Road, Tirupathi, is self-serving document. The petitioner secured the documents as if he were running the business in shop No.1, and in fact, shop No.1 has been in the possession and enjoyment of respondent No.5. 10. As narrated supra, respondent No.5 purchased the entire complex from different individuals, including the common areas from the APIIC under 11. SRS,J ^ W.P.N6.2173 of 2025 registered documents. Respondent No.5 is the owner of the complex, and APIIC has nothinfi to do with the complex. The petitioner came to the Court, pleading as if he had owned shop No.1 in APIIC Complex. In fact, as stated supra, the petitioner does not own shop No.1. Given these facts and discussion, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing tha ^ material facts, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the groi'^^d of ‘suppresio veri suggestion falsi’. 12. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others\ 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 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. or In Dalip Singh v. State of Utta Pradesh and Others^ the Hon’ble Apex Court, considering the new creed of litigants, who are far away from truth, observed as under: 14. 1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. “satya” (truth) and “ahimsa” (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha '(2008) 12 see 481 ^ (2010) 2 see 114 '5? Page 5 qf 7 SRS,J W.P.No.2173 of 2025 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, it;- 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. 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 who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. or 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Moti Lai Songara Vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and another^, 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 soecial 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 suppress/o veri, expressio falsi\.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. We ^ (2013) 9 see 199 SRS,J \A/.P.No.2173 of 2025 calculated concealment of be stated with certitude that the respondent-accused tried to gam advantage by such factual suppression^ The fraudulent intention is writ large. In fact, he has shown hrs courage of ignorance and tried to play possum. there has been a are compelled to say so as fact before the Revisional Court. It can the applied the principle “when is bound to collapse”. 20. The High Court, as we have seen, infrastructure However, as suppressing material fact before a order cannot be allowed to stand. ... collapses, the superstructure obtained by practising fraud and the order has been court of law to gain advantage, the said at hand, as stated supra, the petitioner is not in possession Tirupathi. The petitioner has been running the ino the road margin. The petitioner 16. In the case of shop No.1 in APllC Complex business, adjacent to shop No.1, by occupying approached this Court by concealing is not entitled to t ie discretionary material facts, and hence, the petitioner relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. of the petitioner, this Court is not imposing However, considering the business any costs. Given the above discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the 17. writ petition. this writ petition is dismissed. No costs, sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any 18. Hence shall stand closed. SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR section OFFICER As a //TRUE COPY// To, Sri Prathiwada Varun Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 1. One CC to 2. One CC to Smt. Shanthi Chandra, SC for APllC [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Surya Teja Anumolu, Advocate. [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies. HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.2173 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS