High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution.of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent i.e,, . The Sub Registrar, IVlalkajgiri, IVledchal - Malkajgiri District, in refusing to receive, process, register and release the Release Deed presented by the petitioner in respect of Residential building all that the 4/5th undivided share in Residential House -,,",L No.29-210, PTI No.1 170702803, on Part of Plot No.56, in Survey Nos.151 and 153/1, situated at Nleur Vidya Nagar Colony, Malkajgiri within the lirrits of Greater Hyderabad llr,4unicipal Corporation IVlalkajgiri Circle and Man'lal, Medchal- li/alkajgiri District. basing on the communication issued by the Respondent No.4 vide Letter Lr. No.S-49/SLR12017, dated 04-10-20'17, as illegal, arbitrary, in viotation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of lndia and also in violation of Registiation Act, 1908, besides in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondent no.3 herein to receive, process, register and release the release Deed presented by the petitioner, in respect of Residential building all that the 4/5th undivided share in Residential House No.29-210, PTI No.1170702803, on the part of Plot No.56, in Survey Nos.15i1 and 153/1, situated at New \/idya Nagar Colony, Malkajgiri within the limits of Greater Hyderabad I\,4unicipal Corporation I\,4alkajgiri Circle and Mandal, IVedchal- I\,4alkajgiri District, u ithout reference to the communication issued by the Respondent No. ,1 'riCe Letter Lr. No.S-49/SLR/2017, dated 04-10-:2017 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under .Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filei in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 herein to receive, process, register and release the release Deed presented by the petitroners in respect of Residential building all that the 41slh undivided share in Residential House No.29-210, P11 No.1170702803, on Fart of Plot No.56, in Survey Nos.151 and 15'.111, situated at New Vidya Nagar Colony, tr/alkajgiri within the limits of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporalion lValkajgiri Circle and firlandal, Medchal-l\,4alkajgiri District, without reference 1.o the communication issued by the Respondent No.4 vide Letter Lr. No.S-49/SLR/2017, dated 04-10-2017, in the interr;st of justice, pending disposal o.'the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. B. SHIRISHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: AGP FOR STAMPS Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI FARHAN AZAM KHAN, SC FOR WAKF BOARD The Court made the following: ORDER AND REGISTRATION ,& THE HONOURABLE SRI T'USTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.36769 of 2O24 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: "to declare the action of Respondent No.3 i.e., the Sub Registrar, Malkajgii, Medchal - Malkajgiri District in refusing to receiue register and release the Release Deed presented bg the Petitioners in respect of residential building all that the 4/ 9il, undiuided share iru Residential H.No.29-210, PTI No.1170702803, on the part of Plot No.56, Sg.Nos.151 and 153/ 1 at Neut Vidga Nagar Colong, Malkajgii u.tithin the limits of GHMC, Malkajgiri Circle and Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgin Distict (subject propertg) basing on the communication issued bg respondent No.4 uide Lr.No.S-49/ SLR/ 2017 dated 04.10.2017 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct respondent No.3 to receiue, register and release the release deed presented bg petitioners uith regard to subject propertg."

2. Facts rising to file this writ petition are that the petitioners' claims to be the joint owners and possessors of the subject property, having acquired the same from their ancestors. Originally Mr.G.Ramulu, who is the husband of Petitioner No.1 herein was vested with full rights on the said property. After his demise, petitioner Nos.2 to 5 agreed to release and relinquish their joint rights in favour of petitioner No.l and accordingly, they have executed a release deed and presented the same before respondent No.3 for registration. However, respondent No.3 orally refused to register the same on the ground that the 2 subject prop(rrty is under prohibitory list based on Lr.No.S- 49 ISLR/2O\i' dated O4.1O.2O77. Aggrieved blr the same the present writ pretition is filed. l I ,

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners u'ould submrt that the respondent authorities are duty bound to receive, register and release the subject document and in case of not registering, they shall assign reasons for refusal and pass orders accordingly. As such, it is prayed to direct the registering authority to r,:gister and release the subject document

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has drawn attention of t.his Court to Section 32 and 34 of the Registration Act 1908, -"vhich reads as under:- "32. Persons to present documents for registration.-Except in the cases mentioned irt 1 [sections 31, BB and B9], euery document to be registerecl under this Act, u.thether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the p rop e r r e q istr atio n office,- (a) bg some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copg of a decree or orcler, claiming under the decree or order, or (b) by the representatiue or assign of such a person, or (c) by the agent of such a person, representatiue or assign, dttl.g authorized bg power-of attomeA executed and auth<znticated in manner hereinafter mentioned. 34. Enquiry before registration bg registertng officer.-(1) Subject to the prouisions contained in this Part and tin sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and ,39, no docit ment shall be registered under this Act, urtlczss :., .tl n ) tLte persons exeatting such document, or tlrcir representatiues, assigns or agents autLnrized as aforesaid, a.ppear before the registering officer uithin the time allou.ted for presentation under sectiofts 23, 24, 25 and 26." Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that the procedure for seeking registration of a document is that the parties first and foremost have to execute the document by signing the document and by following the provision contemplated under Section 32 and 34 of the Registration Act 19OB and shall present the document before the registering authority. He would further submit that the parties have to pay registration charges, stamp duty ald other incidental charges by way of challan and the estimated amount for the same will be available in IGRS website, wherein Stamp duty and registration charges will be calculated, enabling the parties to pay the challan. Therea-fter, the parties shall approach the registering authority, enclosing the challan a-1ong with the relevant documents, which proves that the parties have approached and made a proper execution and presentation of document sough for registration. However, in the preset case the petitioners had not enclosed the copy of challan, and no application was filed as a proof that the petitioner had approached the respondent No.3. ! 4

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has atrso placed on record the circular instructions issued by the Com.missioner and Inspector Genera-l of Registration and Stamps, T'elangana, Hyderabad tide Circular 'Memo No.G3l9l22l2024, dated

12.08.2024, u'hich reads as under:- "Attention of the Sub-Registrars and Offi.cers in the address entry is inuited to the reference cited, uherein Hon'ble .l{igh Court, while disposing the W.P No.16836/ 2024 and batch cases, dated: 09-07-2024 issued comnlon orders u,tith certai.n guidelines to the Registration Authc'rities and instructio ns to concerned parties. In cctmpliance tuith the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, th.e folLou-ting instructions are issued. i) Wheneuer parties/ citi-z,en approach to register the documerfts, the concerned Sub-Registrar, sltall as expeditictusly as possible preferablg within one u,teek, either register the document or pass refusal order, in terms of the Registration Act, 19OB and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and communicate the same to the concerned parties. Ln no case, the Sub-Registrars shall not refuse the documents: orallg for registration, and it must be follou-ted by a uitten refusal orders. ii) In ca:;e documents are refused for registration, the Sub- Registrars shall inform the procedure for refund of Stamp DutA ond registration charges to the concerned parties/ Citiz,ens clearlA. The refund shall be stric:tlg as per Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Registration Act, 1908. iti) Sub-I?egistrars shall maintain a watch Register/ General Diary (;D Book/ Entry Book/ Register) at euery Sub- Registrar Offi.ce and to make enties of the parties approaching the office on a particular date and time for the purpose for uhich theg approaclled the offi.ce, so o,s to auoid interference, tampeing and misrepresentation. .l::t m 5 In uieu.t of the directed to maintain a R S1.lrro, Date Time Natre of the Partg Full Postal address ister in the ollo CotLtact aboue Sub-Registrars Gre hereby ro on'nq. Remarks Signature Purpose of uistt propefiA detanls ' All the Sub- Registrars shall inuaiablg maintain the register in the aboue proforrna in their office and shall be kept open to the uisiting public to the office to record their purpose for the future reference. The Distict Registrars shall ensure that the aboue Registers are opened and maintained in the each Sub-Registrar Offce on regular basis. iu) The registering authoities shall follout the guidelines issued in the cases of Vinjamui Rajagopla Chary Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and M/s. Inuecta Technologies prtuate Limited Vs. Gouernment of Andhra Pradesh. These instructions shall be follotued scrupulously. If any deuiation is found, suitqble disciplinary action uill be initiated. These instructions uill not supersede the citizen charter prescibed for uarious seruices rendered bg the department."

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that in the circular dated I 2.O8.2024, the sub-registrars rvere directed to register/refuse the documents presented before them, duly following the guidelines issued in the cases of Vinjamuri Rajagopla Chary Vs. State of Andhra Pradeshr and M/s. Invecta Technologies Private Limited Vs. Government of ' zot6 (z) l.t.o z16 (FB) : 20 r 5 SCC onlinc IIyd 407 l I I I l ,] 6 a\ Andhra Pradesh2 and pass order, as expeditiously ars possible, preferably, u ithin one week from the date of receipt of the documents.

7. Strongly disputing the contentions of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners neither approached the respondent No.3 nor presented an\r document for registration. As such, the question of relusal bl, the respondent does not arise, and therelbre, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondent to register the so called proposed gift deed B. Heard and perused the materia-l available on rccord.

9. It is not out of the place to observe that this, Court on man_v occasions observed that the petitioners in their writ aJfidavits are stating that the Sub-Registrars are orally refusing to register the documents. It is striking to note that the parties in order to en sr-lre that the document presented for registration sha1l not be rejected/ refused for registration are filing writ petitions u,ithout following procedure contemplated under Section 32 and 34 of the Registration Act 1908, and are trying to 2 2021 (t)At I 2'/2 n 7 seek orders by misleading the Court Many of such instances have come to the notice of this Court.

10. Under those circumstance, it is relevant to refer the order dated 19.08.1999, passed in Deverneni Linga Rao Vs. Sub-Registrar, Peddapallis. The relevant paragraphs extracted here under:- "8. The uell established Rule, subject to certain exceptions, is that the applicant for mandamus must show bg euidence, that he made a demand calling upon the concerned authoitg to perform his public dutg and that u.tas met with refusal either byu.tords or by conduct Applging this salutary ntle, the Apex Court in Sarastuati Industrial Sgndicate Ltd Etc., u.- Union of India, thus : '..... TLrc poLuers of the High Court under Article 226 arc not strtctlg confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogatiue urits are subject in English practice. Neuertheless, the u,tell-recognised rule that no Lurit or order in the nature of a mandamus u-tould issue uhen there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Euen in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general ntle, tuhich is subject to certain exceptions, applied bg us, as it is in England, uthen a writ of mandamus is rtsked for, could be stated as u)e find it set out in Halsbury's Lauts of England (3rd edition, Vol.13, P. 1O6): 'As a general tule the order uill not be granted unless the party complained of has knoun uhat it tuas he utas required to do, so that hb had the means of considering u.thether or not he should complg, and it must be shou.tn bg euidence that there u)as a distinct demand of that u-thich the partg seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand u)as met by o refusal". \qgo 1o;nro r,tr I I i 1,l I i i I i i I 8 Frorn the aforementtoned facts and circumstance,; it is clear thal the petitioners could not and did not shottt that theg macle ct demand to the respondent and that u.tas met with refusal. Therefore, it is not possible to issue the declqrati<>n sought for or the consequential direction commana!.inq the respondent herein to register the sale deeds proposed to be executed bg the petition,zrs in fauour oJ their purchasers. Tltis uieu.t of m.ine gains full supporl 1'rom the decision of a Diuision Bench of this Court in D. Ra.tnasunda.i Deui u. Commissioner of Urbant Land C

9. For th<z aforementioned reasons, the wit petitions fail and are accordinglg dismissed, but without costs. Howeuer, tlis order taill not preclude the petitioner s from presenting the sale deeds for registration before the respondent. In such an euent, I am sure, the respctndent uLill hnntediatelg discharge his stdtutory duties mentione,T in Part XI of the Act and consider registerabilitg of th,e sale deeds. I am also sure that in case the reqistration is refused, he uill certainly record the reasctns as enjoined bg Section 71 of the Act and furnish a. copA thereof, if the petitioners appLg Jor the same."

11. It is also relevant to refer the order passed by the Hon'ble Sr-rp,l-sms Court in K,Jayaram and others Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and othera, the relevalt paragraphs are extracted hereunder: "lO.It is utell-settled that the juisdiction exercised by the High ()oufi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India i:; extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is; irnperatiue that the petitioner approachin,T the writ co:url must come uith clean hands and put fontard all facts before the Court tuithout conce'zling or suppressing angthing. A litigant is bound to .state o 1ZOZZ1 tZ Suplenre C'ourt Cascs 815 ,n 9 all facts which are releuant to the litigation. If he u)ithlaoldl some uitctl or releuant material in ord.er to gdin ad.uantage ouer the other side tlrcn he uould be guilty of playing fraud uith the court as uell as uith the opposite parties uthich cannot be countenanced.

11. This Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India t has held that a prerogatiue remedy is not anlailable as a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary pouer, a writ court uould indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party tuhich is irtuoking such juisdiction. If the appltcant does not disclose full facts or suppresses releuant mateials or is othentise guiltg of misleading the court, the court mag dismtss the action u.tithout adjudicating the matter. It tuas held thus: "33. It ts thus clear thot though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercistng discretionary and extraordinary juisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Ouer and aboue, a court of lau is also a court of equitg. Itis, tlrcrefore, of utmost necessitg that u-then a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without ang reseruation. If there is suppression of mateial facts on the part of the applicant or tuisted facts haue been placed before the Court, ttrc uit court mag refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it utithout enteing into meits of the matter." l2.InUdgami Euam Khadi Grannodgog Welfare Sanstlra and Another a. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others2, this Court has reiterated that the wit remedg is an equitable one and a person approaching a superior court must come uith a pair of clean hands. Such person should not suppress any material fact but also should not take recollrse to legal proceedings ouer and ouer again uhich amounts to abuse of the process of law. :lr l I I I I I I I I t0

13. In K..D. Shalma o. Steel Authoritg of India Linited and Others 3, it tuas held thus: " 34. T'he jurisdiction of the Supreme Coutt under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 oJ'the Constitution is extrabrdinarg, equitable and discretionctry. Prerogatiue wrtts mentioned there t are issuecl Jbr doing substantial justice. It is, therefote, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approachin{t the u,tit court must come with clean hands, put fonuard all the facts before the court without concealin.g or suppressi.n.g angthing and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of releuant and mateia,! facts or tLe petitioner is guiltg of mislea:.ding the cot rt, his petition mag be dismissed at the threshold ,.uithout consideing the merits of the clatm. 35. The underlging object has been succin.ctlA sl ated bg Scnhton, L.J., in the leading case of I-!. u. KensingLon. In.come Tax Commissioner in th.e following uords: . .. it ha:; been for manA Aears the tule of the court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that uthen an applicant comes to the coutl to o btain relief on. an ex parte statement he should make a fuLL and fair disclosure of all the mateial facts-it says facts, not l.atu. He must not misstate the latu if het can help it--the court is supposed to kttotu the latu. Ilut it knotus noth.ing about the facts, and the applicant must state .fullg and fatrlg the facts; and the penalt.q bg which the couft enforces that obligation is thal if it finds orl.t thal the facts haue not been fullg and lairlg stated t't it, the court will set aside ang action u.th.ich it has tak:tr oru the faith of the imperfect statement.'' 36. A p'rerogatiue remedg is not a matter of course. WhiLe e:xercising extraordinary potuer a utrit ':ourt would ceft.ainlg bear in mind the conduct of the partg tuho i.nuokes the jurisdiction of the courl. IJ the applicant makes a false statement or suppr€'sses mateia,!. fctct or attempts to mtslead the coutl, the courl may d.isntiss the action on that ground alon.e and mag refuse to enter into the merits of the case bg stat.ting, "We util!. not listen to gour appLication because oJ'uthat gou haue done." The ntle has been euolued i,. the In Income larger public interest to deter unscntpulous litigants from abusing the process of court bg deceiuing it. Kensington

37. Tax Comtnissioners.(supra), Viscount Reading, C.J. obserued: (KB pp. 495-96) '... Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi ' or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion thnt the aJfidauit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state tl'te facts, but stated them in such a uaA as to mislead the Court as to the ttue facts, the Court ough| for its ou,tn protection and to preuent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed ang further with the examination of the meits. ?his is a pou)er inherent in the Court, but one uhich should onlg be used in cases uhich bing conuiction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceiued. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination tuill be mad.e- of the facts as theg are and as theg haue been stated in the applicant's offidauit, and euerything ttill be heard that can be urged to inJTuence the uieu of the Court uthen it reads the affidauit and knou.ts the true facts. But if the result of this examination and heaing is to leaue no doubt that the Court hos been deceiued, then it u-till refuse to Lrcar angthing further from the applicant in a proceeding tuhich has onlg been set in motion bg means of a misleading affidauit."

38. The aboue principles haue been accepted in our legal sgstem also. As per settled law, the partg uho inuokes the extraordinary juisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful' frank and open. He must disclose all mateial Jacts tuithout ang reseruation euen if theg are against him. He cannot be allouted to plag "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The uery basis of the uit jurisdictton rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If mateial facts are suppressed or distorted, the uery functioning of uit courts and exercise uould become impossible. The petitioner nu)st disclose all the facts *lryuing a beaing on the relief sought tttithout ang "rz T2 qualiJicati.on. Ihis is because "the court knows lattt but not fac;Ls" .

39. If the primarg object as highltghted in Kensington Income Tax Comntrs.(supra) is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come u.tith candid fact:; and "cLean breast" cannot hold a utit of the coufl tuith "soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of material _fizcts ls not an aduocacg. It is a jug.qlery, maniptt.l.ation. manoeuuring or misrepresent,:ttion, tuhich. h.cts no place in equttabte and prerogatiue jurisdiction. If the applicant does ruot disclose atl the materta:.l facts fairlg and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the coutt hcts inlrcrent pouer in order to protect itself and. to preuenl on abuse of its process to discharge tht: rule nisl and refuse to proceed further Luith the exami.na.tion of the cose on mertts. If the court d.oe,s not reject the petition on that ground, the court tuould. be failing in its dutg. In fact, such an applicarLt requires to be deal.t with for contempt of court for ctbusinq the process ol'the court."

12. In the case on hald, the petitioners at pararJraph No.7 of the rvrit alfidrrvit stated as follows:- ".....1t i:; submitted that petitioner Nos.2 to S agreed to release and relinquish their jotnt ights in fauour of petition<zr No.l and release deed u..tas presented before respona'en.t No.3 for registration, but to utter shoc:k and surprise: respondent No.3 herein has refused to receiue and register on the ground that there is no registration will be entertained in respect of petitioner's property.,'

13. It is pertinent to note that in the present casc neither a refusal order u,as passed nor any reason was assigned in writing by the respondent No.3 denying registration ancl infacl the draft 13 sale deed filed in the material papers is unsigned and undated' Learned counsel for the petitioners, who verified the plead'ings of writ affidavit, had misrepresented the facts arrd tried to secure an order.

14. In this connection, it is significant to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti Sardarshahar and another Vs. Union of India and others wherein at para 11 observed as unde r: "11. It is a settled proposition of law that a party has to Plead the case and produce/ adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the court is under no obligation to entertain the Pleas. In Bharat Singhv. State of Haryana [AIR 1988 SC 21811 this Court has observed as under: "13. ... In our oPinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must rove such facts b lead and r. s eur zoto sUPREME couRT 2221 It g ,i 14 cvidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the from the counter respondent elldeyt Il the facts are not pleaded or the cvidence in support of such facts is nol annexed to the writ peLition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain Lhe point. There is a distinction bet'ur.een a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petltion or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading i.e. a plaint or a written statcment, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, rur a writ petition or in the counter- ,alfidavit, not onlv the facts but also tlr e evidence in PIoof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to ir."

15. In mv considered view, the aforesaid submis,sion of the learned Assistant Government pleader is u,eil founded. Admittedly, the petitioners did not produce any dor:umentar5z proof in support of their averment that they rrad executed and presented the sr:le deed for registration before responrlent No.3, i \ I \ : , 15 and the same was refused for registration. The petitioners could not even mention the date on which they had approached the respondent. Therefore, it is difficult for this Court to accept the statement of the petitioners that they had approached the respondent authority for registration, more so, when that statement is specifically denied by the respondent. 16 . At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to an earlier order passed by this Court, in similar circumstances, in W,P.No.36O81 of 2O24 dated. 24. 12.2024 wherein this Court dismissed the writ petition which was filed with misleading averments. However, liberty was granted to the petitioners therein to approach the registering authority for registration of subject document in accordance with the provisions of Registration Act, 1908.

17. At this stage, it is relevant to refer the order passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Vijay Syal V. State of Punjab6 dated 22.O5.2OO3, the relevalt paragraph is extracted hereunder: - "In order solemnitg n&cessory to sustain and maintain sanctitg and of the proceedings in la u.t courts it ls that parties should not make false or ir.ri.r 6 2003 Supp(l) SCR 242 l6 knou.lin g ly, inaccurate state ments or misrepre sentatio n and/ or s:hould not conceal material facts u.tith a d.esign to gain sonte aduantage or benefit at the hand,s of {Lrc court, u,tlten a court is considered as a place where truth and justic<; are the solemn pursuits. If ang ,oarty attempts to pollute such a place bg adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and. is concealing mateial facts it doe.s so at its nsk and. cost. Such paiy must be readA to take consequences that follow oi ctciunt of its own mdicing. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment bg courts in dealing u.tith such m(ttter:; are either m,istakbn or lightlg taken instead, of learning proper lesson. Hence there is a compelling need- to take senous uietu in such m.atters to ensure expected. puitg and grac<z irt the administration of justice."

18. In the aforesaid case, the Hon,ble Supreme Court has held that any false statement in the petition is abuse of law and serious vie'a. has to be taken by Court. In the present case, the petitioners in order to suit their case and to secure an order have made misleading averments. Hence, this writ petition rs liable to be dismissed. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissecl.

19. Holvever, it is made clear that this orcler will not preclude the pel.itioners from presenting the subject rlocument for registration before the registering authority, by duly following the due proceclure as contemplated under latv. t7

20. With the above observations, this writ petition 1S dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPY// sD/-v. SSISTANT RE KAV}THA GI$SRAR A ECTION OFtlpER '1 , 1 . One CC to Ms. B. SHIRISHA, Advocate t-O?!-Ci ? rwoccs to GP ron siXrrrips li'roqEdtsrneTloN 'High - 3. one cc to sRl. FARHAN"AZIM rtnArl, sc FoR WAKF BoARD [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies siate oflelangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Court for the -. - BM GJP j I I l i To, HIGH COURT DATED:2310112025 '( l) rC ORDER i r erC WP.No.36769 of 2024 I .-:La JTA i- 11r'[' 2[25 1 , DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS I I I