The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION Nos.6210 2024 and 13794OF 2025 WRIT PETITION O:6210 OF 2024 Between: Voltas Employees Co-operative House Building Society, Reg.No. TAB-508, Rep. by its Secretary, K.Srinivasa Rao, aged about 58 years, Having its office at present at7-1-31116, Phool Bhag Lane, Ferozguda, Hyderabad-11. ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 3 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary; Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, 5OO022 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad-500004. The Tahsildar, Trimulgherry Mandal, Secunderabad.

4. The Cantonment Board, Rep by C.E.O City Civil Court Compound, Secunderabad 500 003

5. The Commissioner for Co-operation and Register of Cooperative Societies, fsrlhe State of Telangana, Gruhakalpa, lll Floor, Nrl.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001 6 Sri Swamy Ayyappa Co-Operative Housing Society, (Reg.No.366), Rep Secretary, Alladi Raghunatha Rao, having residence at Plot No. 62 and Jupiter Colony, Opp. Corporation Bank, Market Road, Secunderabad. , by its 63, 7 The District Registrar, North, Redhills, Hyderabad-500004 B. The Sub Registrar, Bowenpally, Sayed Brigadier Road, Secunderabad- 50001'1. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari by calling for the file from the 3rd respondent, pertaining to the fraudulent letter dt.16.11.1998 and further may be pleased to call for the file pertaining to the consequential resolution of the 4th respondent dt.'l3.02.1999 and the same have to be quashed by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Article 14, 19,21, 111,2OO, 300-A, 368 of the Constitution of lndia R/w Cantonrnent Act, 1924 and consequently to set aside the fraudulent letter, dt.1 6.1 1 .1998 and the consequential resolution of the 4th respondent dt.13.02.1999. 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 permit the petitioner /party -in - person to appear and argue in person. lA NO: 2 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 suspend the false, fictitious and fraudulent letter/ proceedings dt.16.11.1998 issued by the 3rd respondent at the behest of 6th respondent and also the consequential fraudulent 4th respondent resolution dt.13.02.1999 in sanctioning layout to the 6th respondent society Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. SRINIVASA RAO, PARTY lN PERSON Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3,7 and 8: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4:SRl K.R. KOTESWARA RAO, SC FOR CANTONMENT BOARD Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI E. RAVINDER REDDY, AGP FOR COOPERATION WRIT PETITION NO: 13794 OF Z02S Between:

1. ){o!tqs. Employees Co-operative House Building Society, Rep by it's secretary K Srinivasa Ra.o, h.avilg their office at present At l-'t-3i611, Phool Bagh Lane-, Ferozguda Hyderabad 50001 1 .

2. K Srinivasa Rao, s/o. K Venkateswara Rao aged 60 years, occ Employee Voltas limited, F/o H No.48-444, Ganesh Nagar,-HMT post Hyderabad s4.' ...PETITIONERS AN D 1. Union of lndia, Rep by it's President Secretariat, Ra.ghtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi

2. Government of lndia, Rep by itls Secretary, [/inistry of Defence, New Delhi 3. The Director General, Defence Estates, New Delhi 4. The"Directorate'of Defense Estate, tvlinistry of Defence, Southern Command, Pune,

5. The Defence Estate Officer, Telangana Circle, Secunderabad 6. The Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Rep by it's Chief Executive Officer having their office at city civil courts comrilex, secunderabad s00003

7. The State of Telangana, Rep by it's Principal Secretary for Municipal Ad min istration d epa rtment Secreta riat B u ild i ngs, Hydeiabad

8. Greater Hyderabad tMunicipal corporation, Rep by it's commissioner, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad

9. 9fj S.yg*y Ayyqpqa Co-operative Housing Society, Rep by its Secretary Alladi Raghunath Rao Having ryo Plot No.62 and 03, .Jupiter Colony, Opp Corporation Bank, Sikh Road, Secunderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the illegal, unlawful, false and fictitious layout got created by the 6th respondent vide letter dt.30.08.1999 from the 4th respondent under the shelter of Layout Bye Laws created by the 6th Respondent Cantonment Board vide S.R.O No.91 , dt.26.O2.1g74, without the consent of the Hon'ble President of lndia as required under Article 53 and 77 of Constitution of lndia and the same are in violation of Article 12, 14,21,53,77,300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to proceed with the receiving of apptications from the public of twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad in respect of layout plans/ building permissions as specified under Cireater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and further may be pleased to pass. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Layout Bye Laws, created by the 6th Respondent Cantonment Board vide S.R.O No.91, d1.26.02. 1g74, pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 oF 2025 Petitton:'onder 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 suspend the 4th respondent layout proceedings dt.30.08.1999, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO, PARTY lN PERSON Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI K.R. KOTESWARA RAO, SC FOR CANTONMENT BOARD Counsel for the Respondent No.7: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.9: SRt RAVI CHANDRASEKHAR, SC The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE THE CHIET'JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOTIIUDDIN WRIT PETITION Nos.621O of 2o24 end 794 of 2ol25 COMMON ORDER: Heard Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao, party in-person, Mr. K.R. Koteswara Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Secunderabad Cantonment Board appears for respondent No.6 in W.P.No.I3794 of 2025, Mr. E. Ravinder Reddy, Assistant Government Pleader appears for Cooperation for respondent No.5 in W.P.No.6210 of 2024

2. Both the writ petitions are filed by the sarne petitioner. W.P.No.62lO of 2024 is liled for the following relief: "lt is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling for the lile from the 3.d respondent, pertaining to the fraudulent letter dated 16.11.1998 and further may be pleased to call for the file pertaining to the consequential resolution of the 4th respondent dated L3.O2.1999 and the same have to be quashed by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Article 14, 19.,2L, L 11, 200, 3O0-A, 368 of the Constitution of India r/w Cantonment Act, 1924 and'consequentl5r to set aside the fraudulent letter, dated 16.11.1998 and the consequential t t "l resolution of the 4th respondent dated 13.02.1999 and pass such other order or orders eis this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circi:mstances of the case." W.P.No. 13794 of 2025 is filed for the following relief: "[t is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Cou-rt may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of rvrit of certiorari quashing the illegal, unlawful, falsr: and fictitious layout got created blr ths 6th resJrondent vide letter dated 30.08. 1999 from the 4*1 respondent under the shelter of La-vout Bye [,aws crcated by the 6ft respondent Canttlnment Board vide S.R.O.No.91, dated 26-0r2.1974, without the consent of the Hon'ble President of India as required under Article 53 & 77 of Constitution of India and the same are in violation of Article L2, 14, 2L, 53, 77, 3OO-A of the Con.stitution of India and consequently direct the resl>ondent Nos.3 & 4 to proceed with the receiving of applications from the public of twin cities of Hyclerabad and Secunderabad in respect o1-layout plans/building permissions as specified under Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and further may be pleased to pass such othr:r order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the CaSr3."

3. During the course of submissions, on being repeatedly asked, the party in-person has disclosed that there are two suits bearing O.S.Nos.32O of 2006 and 192 of 2Ol8 on the file of the learned III Senior Civil Judge, Secunde.rabad and the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, respectively. The 3: subject matter of the said suits relates to Sy.No.233 of Thokatta Village, which fact is not disclosed by the party in-person in these two writ petitions

4. We have also put a pointed query to the party in- person as to what is his locus standt to assail the bye-laws created by the Cantonment Board vide S.R.O.No.91, dated

26.O2.L974. Again, on being repeatedly asked, party in- person has disclosed that part of his land in Sy.No.233 is being incl.uded in the area of the Cantonment Board in an illegal manner.

5. It is relevant to quote paragraph Nos.4l and 39 of the affidavits of W.P.Nos.621O of 2024 and 13794 of 2025 respectively which contain the statement of disclosure of pending matters in these two writ petitions, which read as under: "41. It is submitted that the petitioner has not filed any other writ, suit or application before any other Court or authority in respect of the subject matter of this writ peUtton." "39. It is submitted that the petitioner has not filed any other writ, suit or application before any other Court or authority in respect of the subject matter of this writ petltion." aI I 2i4iI

6. In the p-resent case, there is a glaring and deliberate supprt:ssion of material lacts and a non-disclosure of several pivotal legal proceedings that have a direct and substantial bearing on the subject matter of these writ pet.itions. This is a fundamental and fatal flaw which vitiates the very maintainability of these writ petitions.

7. 'ihe Ia'*' on the duty of the petitioners to make a full, fair. and frank disclosure is well-settlecl ancl non- negoti;able. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments including S.P. Chengatuorrorga Naidu (dead) bg L.Rs. us. Jago;nnath (dead) bg L.Rs. and. Othersl, and It.D. Sharmcr us. Steel Authoritg of India Ltd.. gJ othersz, has held that suppression of material facts, ipso facto, is sufficient to dismiss a petition without entering into its merits. A person who approaches the court invoking its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction must place all relevant facts before the court without reservation. A pet.ition which is founded on the partial and selective 1(rgg+) t scc I 2 (zooe) 12 scc 48r 5 disclosure of facts is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

8. In this case, the suppression is not of a minor accidental detail, it goes to the very root of'the matter and such suppression of the fact that the suits in O.S. Nos. 320 of 2006 and 192 of 2018, involving the sarne subject matter in relation to Sy.No.233 of Thokatta Village, are pending and were not 'disclosed in the subject writ petitions by the party-in-person in the relevant paragraph where the statement about the pending proceedings had to be made, will have a direct impact on the fair adjudication of the present case. The suppression in the present case is of a vital fact. This Court cannot and witl not countenance such a practice, which is an abuse of the process of the Court.

9. Suffice it to state that the aforesaid view has been consistently referred to and applied in the following ) ) judgments of the Apex Court. 6 i. ln Dalip Singh a. State of U.P. and Othersg the Hon'ble Supi:emc Court noted a concern for declining ethics and thc tendencv to suppress facts. It reinforccd that those secking justice must be honest, anrl blamervorthy concluct dise nt.i[lcs a party to relief. ii. In Prestige Ltghts Ltd. u. State Bank of India4 the Court held that the High Court, acting as a Court of F)quit-y uncler Article 226, requires parties to disclose all factri. Suppression of material facts can result in the r,r,rit petit:i<ln being dismissed. iii. In .Ktshore Samrite v. State of U.P. and Otherss the Ape.< Ccurt has emphasized the necessity of "clean trands," "r:lean mind," "clean heart," and "ciean objectrve" in litigation. A party failing to approach the court with clean hands risks their case being dismissecl.

10. It was therefore incumbent upon the party in-person to make disclosure of pendenc]r of the suits covering the subject nratter of the property which gave cause of action to the party in person to assail the bye-laws created by the Cantonment Board dated 26.O2.1974. Non-disclosure of such material facts and particulars in proceedings under writ jurisdiction, ',vhich a-re governed by pleadings and \ supporting documents, as ordinarily no evidence is 3 1zoro1 2 scc I 14 o lzooty S scc 449 s lzors; 2 scc 39s 7 required to be adduced, is a case of serious suppression of material facts on the part of party in-person I 1. We therefore dismiss both the instant writ petitions on the ground of suppression of material facts. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed SD/.M. JAWAHAR REDDY ISTANT //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, t I TJ LS [OPUC]

1. One CC to Sri(. Srinivasa Rao, .pryty ln person 2- Two ccs to Gp for Revenue, High court roitne sthe orietangana, at _ Hyderabad [OUT] 3. ONE CC tO SC foi GHMCIOPUCI 4. One CC to Sri Ravi Chantrasekhar, SCIOPUC] 5. one cc to Sri K.R. Koteswara Rao, scior cJ,itonr"nt Board[opuc] 6. one cc to sri N.p[ujaloa Rao, ppqrly soricitoicenerar or rnbialoFi-rc] 7. Two cc to The Gp foi Revenue, nisjn iourt roi ir," sirie oi'r"iri!-rnr, ,t _ Hyderabad[OUT] 8. Two cc to The gp r.o: Municipal Administration UrQ?n Development, High Court for the Stgle^oJ Tetangana, at HyderiOiOfOUt - '- -r"'-"" 9. Two cC to The GP for Coofieration, nign Couiltoiitie State of Tetangana, at HyderabadlOUTI 10.Two CD Copies I I HIGH COURT DATED:2911012025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.6210 of 2024 and d13794 of 2025 -.-: ' ii.! 2r ilBtt 145 'i (1 * i DISMISSING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS \b