Second Writ On Same Subject Without Disclosing Pending Litigation: Andhra Pradesh HC Imposes 1 Lakh Cost, Initiates Criminal Contempt Action

The petitioner had approached the High Court praying for the issuance of the writ of mandamus directing the authorities to remove the unauthorized construction of certain commercial shops and declaring their inaction on the petitioner's earlier representations as illegal and violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas Development Act, as well as Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court took note of the fact that the same petitioner had earlier moved a petition with respect to the same cause of action and for the same reliefs against the same respondents, although through a different counsel. Furthermore, in his affidavit which was filed in support of the second petition, the petitioner had explicitly stated that he had 'not filed any suit or writ or any proceedings before any court or Tribunal, nor any writ or suit is pending before any court or Tribunal seeking the relief sought for in this writ petition.' The Court also observed that the matter in that petition was still pending and was posted for October 20.

The petitioner argued that he was not aware of filing of the earlier writ petition, alleging that he had handed over the relevant papers to a local counsel and that the filing of the earlier writ petition was not to his knowledge.

Rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner as a mere 'afterthought', the bench said:

"Filing of the second petition without making disclosure of the 1st petition on the same subject by the same petitioner is an abuse of the process of the Court. It is an effort to get an order, which might have been in his favour, contrary to the earlier order passed in W.P.No.32260 of 2022. The fact of filing and pendency of the earlier W.P.No.32260 of 2022 is a material fact and suppression or concealment of such fact is impermissible to the litigant and even as technique of advocacy. Filing of the false affidavit by the petitioner is an evil and deserves to be curved with strong hand to preserve the purity of the judicial administration."

The Court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and Others, (2010) 4 SCC 728, Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2013) 2 SCC 398, Sciemed Overseas Inc. v. Boc India Limited and Others, (2016) 3 SCC 70.

Accordingly, the single bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari imposed cost of Rupees one lakh on the petitioner for abusing the process of the Court to be deposited within one month with the Andhra Pradesh State High Court Legal Services Authority. In a separate order, the bench also initiated criminal contempt proceedings against him. It said,

"The petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands, clean mind or clean heart. He has made an unsuccessful attempt by concealment of the material fact of the earlier petition filed by him on the same subject; which might have resulted in an order different from the order passed in the earlier petition and may be to the advantage of the petitioner. The above act of abuse of the process of the Court by the petitioner, prima facie, amounts to interferences or tends to interfere with due course of the judicial proceedings as also interferes or tends to interfere with the administration of justice, amounting to Criminal Contempt of this Court. Accordingly for the aforesaid, the proceedings for Criminal Contempt are drawn by the Court against the petitioner."

Case Title: P. Ranga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case No: Writ Petition No. 33403 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 131 

Coram: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Click Here To Download Contempt Order