High Court Imposes Exemplary Cost On Plea Against Telangana's Power Distribution Company For Suppression Of Material Facts

The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed against the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited with exemplary costs of 1 lakh, on finding the petitioner guilty of suppressing material facts.

The order was passed by Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka in a Writ petition filed in 2022, challenging the actions of TSSPDCL in the alleged unlawful acquiring of the property of the petitioners to the extent of 2,432 sq yards in Amberpet Village.

Court said petitioner failed to disclose the factum that the had withdrawn an earlier suit with respect to the property. It said,

“In the instant case, since petitioner has not disclosed filing of suit and its withdrawal, this Court directed to maintain status quo, hence, they have to be non-suited on the ground of suppression of material facts. They have not only approached this Court with unclean hands but also abused the process of law which disentitles them to seek extraordinary, equitable and discretionary relief. This Court therefore, is of the view that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) to be payable to the credit of the High Court Legal Services Committee, within a period of two weeks from today” the Bench held.

The petitioners prayed that the respondents be injuncted from interfering with the suit schedule property and consequently prayed for directions to be passed to acquire the suit schedule property only in accordance with the procedure stipulated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

When then matter was first placed before the bench, considering the prima facia allegations, the bench had directed both parties to maintain status quo.

The respondent authorities moved a 'vacate' petition against the interim orders passed, contended that the suit property was acquired in 2013, through legitimate means of District Collector and Tahsildar proceedings. Additionally, the officials stated that they came to know that a suit had been initiated in 2007 in respected of the suit schedule property by the petitioners. During the pendency of the suit, the property was not acquired, however, after dragging the matter for 11 long years, the petitioners filed a withdrawal memo in 2018, with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings.

The respondents stated that after the dismissal of the said suit in, 2018 the property was acquired and compound wall was set up. They vehemently contended that the petitioner had suppressed material facts regarding ownership and possession of the suit property and brought to the notice of the Court that in view of all the pending litigation, the respondents were unable to take up construction of 33/11 KV sub-station, for which the land was sanctioned.

The Bench took serious note of the allegations.

“This is a clear case of suppression of facts. In the entire affidavit, there is no whisper that petitioner filed suit and it was withdrawn after 11 years. It is well-settled that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put-forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. This is because 'the Court knows law but not facts'. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the otherside, then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced.” Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka noted.

While dismissing the petition with costs, the Bench emphasised on the importance and need for parties to disclose pending and prior litigation and directed that in case no there is no pending litigation between the parties they need to disclose the same.

“In case, according to the parties to the dispute, no legal proceeding or court litigation was or is pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law. (see Shri K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority)”

Case no.: WP 37851 of 2022

Counsel for petitioners: Rapolu Bhaskar

Counsel for respondents: T. Vinod Reddy (SC for TSTRANSCO)

Click Here To Read/Download Order