The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI MAHESH RAJE, GP :OR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI AVINASH DESAI, S'. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI KATIKA RAVIIII }ER REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO: 1112 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Pre erred Against Order Daled 2810712025 in WP No.2337 of 2025 on the file of the Hici Court. Between: J.P. Hospitals, A registered partnership firm H.No. 8-5C a Colony, Peezadiguda Municipal Corporation, IVledip r y District, Rep by its [\/anaging Partner Chinthala Jaipal R: Jd nd 851, Sai Nagar Mandal, Ir/edchal v ...APPELLANT AND 1 2 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Princ p tl Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malkajgiri Divisi,r r, fi/edchal-Malkajgiri District.

3. The Station House District. Officer, Medipally Police Statior Medchal-Malkajgiri 4 Arumulla Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o Narasa Reddy, r\ ged. 50 years, Occ. Business, R:/o Villa No.12, SLN Lumbini Springs, lv jacent to Botanical Gardens, Gachibowli, Hyderabad- 500032, Telangana. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ; "cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou - may be pleased to direct the Respondents restore Appellant's possess i ,n over property admeasuring 400 sq yards bearing H. No. 8-50 and B-51, F'l rt No. 37 and 50 in Sy. No. 51 , 51|e, Sai Nagar colony, Peerzadiguda [Vltrr icipal Corporation, Medipally Mandal. Medchal District pending disposal of the vr it appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI R.SUSHANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI MAHESH RAJE, Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI AVTNASH DESAI, Sr. COUNSEL, REp. FOR SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDOY The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BIIATTA( HARYA AND THE IION,BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KC MAR UIRIT APPEAL Nos.l111 and, Lll2 of 2(Ils Mr.R.Sushanth Reddy, Ieamed counsel appcaring [or the appellant' Mr.R.Nagaquna Reddy, the lcarned Assrstant Governmenl Pleader lor l\ ediczrl and Health Departmerlt [or the rcspondent Nos.I and 2 in W A No' 1 I ll of 2025 and t re rcspondent No 1 in !V.A.No.1l 12 o{ 2O2:>. Mr.Mahcsh Raje, the learned Govemment Plcader lor Home for thr: r spondcnt No 3 in w.A.No I l1i of2025 and the respondent Nos 2 and 3 in W A No 1112 cl ) )25 Mr Avrnash Desaj, learncd Senior Counsel rcprescnting Mr'thtika Rav n ler Reddy' lcarned counsel lor rhe respondcnL No.4 ln W.A.No t 111 of 2025' coMMON WDGMENT (per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi El ttacllaryo)

1. The present Writ Appeals arise from a comm:l I order daled 28.07.2025 passcd by the learned Single Judge in W' ''Nos 36349 of 2024 and. 2337 of 2025 filed by the appellant' '2. W.P.No.36349 of 2024 was filed by the appellan' rvrit petitioner to declare the action of the respondent Nos'2 and 3 in the Writ Petition (the District Medical and Health Ofhcer and tLe Ofhccr, Medipally Police Station) in locking th: Pcerzadiguda, Medipally by allegedly taking ach z Station House premiscs at ntagc of rhe Cancellation Or<ler dated 05.17.2024 W P No 2337 cf by the appellant to direct the respondent Nos l ttr 2O25 was hled 3 in the Writ Petition (the State of Telangana, the Assistant Commi'r ione r of Police, Malkajgiri Division, the SHO, Medipally Police Sta r rn) to put the *,--1 I- \ ) w.A. Nos. t t t 7 ""rY'{r1t"trf;{ appellant/writ petitioner in absolutc control of J.P. Hospitals and the subject property by implementing the orders in I.A.No. I of 2024 in \ W.P.No.36349 of 2024

3. The appellant had obtained an interim order on 24.12.2024 in I.A.No. 1 of 2024 in W.P.No.36349 of 2024 by which the respondent Nos.2-3 therein were directed to unlock the appellant hospital (J.p. Hospitals). The appellant also obtained an interim order dated

24.12.2024 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.36349 of 2024 whereby the respondents were directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellant's hospital without following due process of law.

4. By the impugned common order dated 2a.O7.2025, the learned Single Judge dismissed both the Writ Petitions filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant/ petitioner had failed to show any valid legal right or lease in the subject property/ hospitat. The learned Single Judge also found that the petitioner had given up the lease and did not retain any tenancy or possession rights over the subject property. The impugncd order further states that J.p. Hospitals was running without qualified doctors and was involved in unauthorized medical procedures and criminal charges against the Managing Director for fake medical certihcates and malpractice. However, the Writ Petition was primarily drsmissed for suppression of material lacts I t \ \ MB,J & GPK,J W.A.Nos.7771aad 7772 of 2025 including the pendency of an earlier Writ Petition : eeking similar 3 reliefs 5- Counsel appcaring for the appellant disputes 1 e allegation of suppression of facts and submits that material facl:' are only those which form the foundation of a plaintifls cause ( f action or a dcfendant's defense. Counsel submits that the Writ F :titions should not have been rejected solely on the ground of dispute: facts since the petilioner had a legitimate claim. Counsel argues t ha t the Writ Court should have granted relief in the face of admitted arlr' rary action on the parl of the State.

6. The lcarned Government Pleader for Home :r1r rcaring for the Policc Department and the Assistant Government Ple z der for Medical and Health Department appearing for the District Mel cal and Health Officcr, Mcclchal Malkajgiri District defend thc atrti appcllant/J.P. tlospitals on the ground that it'r without an authorized license. The Court is inlc Managing Drrector of J.P.Hospitals was invol"r rn against the rs functioning -med that the d in scveral malpractices including illegal medical termination of pr )gnancy. Learncd Senior Counsel appearing for ' re respondent 7. No.4/owncr of the subject properry argues that tlr I Writ Appeals should be dismissed on the admitted suppression o- lacts' Counsel urges that the appellant/ representative Managir g Director of I L. +rtt .- \ \l \ MB,J & GPI<,J W.A.Nos.7777 and 7772 of 2025 J.P.Hospitals does not have any valid legal right or lease over the 4 \ \ subject property and hence could not have approached the Writ Court for any relief in respect of the subject property

8. We have heard iearned counsel appearing lor the appellant, the learned Government Pleader lor Home, the Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health Department appearing for the District Medical and Health Ofhcer and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4/landlord of the subject property. We have also perused the documents which were placed before the learned Single Judge but were not firled in the Writ Appeal. A list of these documents which were part of the Writ Petition is placed before us by the respondent No.4. Moreover, the appeliant has also failed to hle certain documents along with the Memo which was handed up by the appellant on 15. 10.2025.

9. There are several documents which were a part of the Writ record which. are material to the adjudication. None of these 23 documents have been hled in the Appeal. Of these documcnts, a Deed of Cancellation of Lease dated 2l .72.2O24 executed between the respondent No.4 and SR Super Speciality Clinic as well as an FIR dated 2 1 . 1 1.2022 and a Chargesheet dated 21.O4.2023 have not been placed before us despite being part of the writ record. Apart from these vital documents, there are several other orders and petitions ! \ \ MB,J & GPK,J W.A.Nos.7 7 7 ) .nd 7172 of 2025 including a plaint frled by one Santhosh Kumar agai r it the appellant 5 (O.S.No. 135 of 2024) which are also not part of the re r rrds in the Writ Appeal. The plaint in O.S.No.174 of 2024 filed lr' the Managing Director of the appeltant/J.P- Hospitals againsl he respondent No.4/landtord for perpetual injunction in respecl of the subject property is also not a part of the Writ Appeals. iO. The change in the lease holding/ownership 'eflects one SR Super Speciality Clinic as u'ell as Santhosh Kumar' Iowever, it is of relevance that t hc o'"vnership rights of the subject pr ) )erty came back to the respondcnt No.4. The respondent No.4 is prc: ently the owner of thc subjcct propert] and there is no dispute to this act' 1 1. It is r.vell settled that the materiality of a docunt' the Court and not by the party who approaches the (l nt is decided by rurt for relief. A person invoking Writ j urisdiction of a High Court un c the Constitution of India should approach the Court " Anar Singh Vs. Llnion of Indiat. The material facts in t =r Article 226 of ith clean hands: ris case are that the Chinthala Jaipat Rcddy who is the Managin; director of the appeltant/.I.P. Hospitals does not have a valid licen:t to practice as a Doctor ancl a Chargesheet was filed against him fir thc offences of cheating and forgery under sections 420, 468 and'f '1 of The Indian Penal Code, 186O. t l2O111 7 Supreme Court Cases 69 6 MB,J & GPK,J W.A.Nos.7777 and. 7772 of 2025 L2. The fact that the representative/ Managing Director of the appellant seeks to discharge the functions of a hospital without having a medical practitioner's license is indeed crucial [o the case so.ught to be made out by the appellant/writ petitioncr. The appellant/writ petitioner sought for several reliefs in the two Writ Petitions. In W.P.No.36349 of 2024, the appellant/writ petitioner sought reliel against the action of the District Medical and Health Officer and the Station House Officer, Medipally Police Station in locking the subject property. In W.P.No.2337 of 2025, thc appellant/writ petitioner sought for a direction on lhe respondent Nos. 1 to 3 therein i.e., the State, the Assistant Commissioner of Police and the Station House Offtcer, Medipally Police Station to take necessary steps to put the appellant/writ petitioner in absolu[e control of the hospital. Hence, the fact that the representative/Managing Director of the appellant does not have a license to practice as a Doctor would have a strong bearing on the reliefs sought in the two Writ Petitions.

13. The counter affidavit hled by the respondent No.2/the District Medical & Health Ofhcer in W.P.No.36349 of 2024 states that the representative/ Managing Director of the appellant hospital license is liable to be cancelled due to various instances of misconduct and misrepresentation under the District Regulatory Authority I I \ \ -/' Regulations. 1'he Ctrargesheet 7 MB,J & GPK,J W.A.Nos. 1 7 71 c nd. 17 72 of 2025 which was brougL 1 on record in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in W.P.No.36349 of 2024 by the resp,r Ldent No.4 also reflects that the reprcsentative/ Managing Director I the appellant was charged for offernces of cheating and forgery and also for practicing medicinc with a false certificate anc without valid registration from the Telangana State Medical Council

14. The suppression of the Chargesheet and the co- -rter alhdavit of the respondent No.2, by thc appellant/writ petitiontrr which reflects misconduct and misrepresen tation not being brorr tht on record. Hencc raises a presumption of suppression of facts wlr ch is deliberate and for oblique molives. In our view, non-disc I ,sure of these documents would certainly amount to suppression of r raterial facts as they would have a bearing on the appellant's right to r :lief in the Writ Appeal. We accordingly do not lind any error in the . rrpugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the hnding ol suppression of facts recordcd therein. tn fact, the suppression goes :, the root of lhe discretionary jurisdiclion of the High Court under Ar .icle 226 of the Constitution.

15. Moreover, the appcllant rclies on new docum: rts in the Writ Appeal including rvhatsapp communications which u( re not a part of the record in the two Writ Petitions, The Court car r ot entertain an entirely nc\\' case rn the appellate stage at the beher; of either party t 8 MB,J & GPK,J VI.A.Nos.7717 dnd 7772 oJ 2025 and is strictly confined to adjudicate the issues arising from the Suit as framed by the pleadings of the parties: Diugagnakumai Haisinh Parmar Vs. union of India2 ' lf there is no pleading having been taken before the Writ Court then it is not available for the parff to come out totally with the new case on basis of the document which was never learned Single Judge for their consideration placed beforc the Saraswati Deui us. Stote of Jharkhands -

16. The Writ Appeals also involve several disputed questions of fact with regard lo ownership/ possession of the subject property involving sevcral civil suits bctween appellant, the respondent No'4 as well as the prevlous owner of the subject property O'S No'174 of 2024 is pending belore the I Additional District Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District wherein the appellant has filed a Suit against the respondent No.4 seeking a restraint on the latter from interfering with Lhe appellant's posscssion of the suirject property O'S No' 135 of 2024 rs filed by the previous owner of the subject property/ Santhosh Kumar against thc appellant for eviction v"hich is also pcnding before the Principal District.iudge, I\{edchal Malkajgiri District The High Court while exercising its cxtraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution should not adjudicate disputed questions of facts: Stubhas Jairu Vs. Rajeshutari Shiuama ' , 2025 SCC Online SC 2064 3 2025 SCC Online JL.ar 2972 1 (2021) 20 Supreme Court Cases 454 \ \ " *'o''o s'7777 qnd t';i'*"ftrf;!t 17. It is also undisputed that the appeiiant does not htr e any legal or valid right or lease over the subject property Tl; appellant surrendered the Lease Dced dated 22 'O8 '2022 executed ;slurssn the appeilant and Santhosh Kumar / previous owner o1' he subject property Hence' the finding of the lcarned Singie Jt r ge that the appellant does not have any valid legal right or lease ov: the subject property is factuaily correct and there is no scope for ir 'erference the said finding. rn any cvent, a court's interference in the writ appeal is narrow and should only be exercised wherL the order in question contains manifest or palpable errors B'Venka r muni Vs' C'J' Agodhya Ram Singh' The lurisdiction o[ the Division I] :nch in a Wril Appeal is primarilv one of adjud'ication of qut I [ion of law: Commissioner of tncome Tax Vs' Kantataka Planter:; Coffee Cuing Work (P) I-td ''6 tsesides' there are evident con'r rdictions and inconsistencies in the appellan t's allegations- The (:( unter aflidavit filed by the respondent No 3/Station House ofhcer' I iedipaliy Police Station in W'P No 36349 ol 2r)24 clenies the appellar ''s allegation of the police locking the hospital premises and states tlr rt Mr'Chinthala Jaipal Reddy' the Managing Director of the appellant t ospital lodged a Complaint stating that the respondent No 4/ownt r of the subject property locked the premises thereby contradicting i verments in the two Writ Petitrons and the present Writ Appeals' :, 2006 13 scc 4'+9 6 2016 g scc 538 I i I -rr l t \ 10 MB,J & GPK,J W.A.Nos.77 7 7 and 7 772 of 2025 18. The rcspondent's submissions are corroborated from the material which has been piaced by the respondent in the Writ appeal' We do not find any crror in the findings of the learned Single Judge' The supprcssion ol facts on the part of the appellant is writ large in the Appeals. The appellant does not have any explanation as to the basis of thc appellant taking a unilateral decision of bringing certain selected documcnts in the writ Appeal while ignoring the rest which were part of the u'nt rccords The absence of any right in terms of a lea.se or othcnvisc in respect of the subject property is a further ground to deny any rclicl to the appellant' We accordingll' hnd both the Writ Appeals to be devoid of merit' along u'ith all connccted t9 W.A.Nos. 1111 and lll2 ot 2025 ' applications, are accordingly dismissed' There shall be no order as to //TRUE COPY// . SD/.MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, One CC to SRI R.SUSHANTH REDDY' Advoca One CC to SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY' Advocate IOPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR ME-DICAL HEALTH FW' High Court for the State of i"ringrn, at HYderabad [OUTI Two CCs to GP FOR HOME' High Court for the State of Telangana at loPUCl

2. a 4 Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD CoPies 5 BSR LS -* HIGH COURT DATED:2411012025 ,;tj -\..\ ,. \ ":.:.\", ( i; u -tL W \ /. COMMON ORDER WA.Nos.1111 and 1'112 ot 2025 DISMISSING BOTH THE WRIT APPEALSi WITHOUT COSTS -1 a- \ {