THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.8198 of 2009 Dated 14th July, 2011 Between: Duggini Peda Pitchaiah …Petitioners And The Additional Agent to Government/Project Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.V.Venu Counsel for respondents: GP for Social Welfare The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not disposing of the stay application or the appeal filed by the petitioner on 06.04.2009 against the order of eviction passed by respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. The admitted facts of the case are that in respect of an extent of Acs.5.00 in Survey No.280/3 of Gundlarevu Village, Julurupadu Mandal, Khammam District, one Malkam Venkateswarlu, S/o Swamy, who belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Community, made a complaint. Thereupon, respondent No.2 initiated proceedings under the provisions of the A.P.Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1970 and passed an order of eviction on 13.11.2008. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before respondent No.1 by impleading the said Malkam Venkateswarlu as respondent No.1 to the said appeal. The petitioner filed an application for interim stay of the order of eviction. On the ground that no order on the stay application was passed, the petitioner filed the present writ petition without impleading the said Malkam Venkateswarlu. This Court by order, dated 21.04.2009, granted interim stay of eviction of the petitioner. On coming to know about the said order, Malkam Venkateswarlu filed W.P.M.P.No.16740 of 2009 for impleading him as respondent No.4 in the writ petition. At the hearing, Sri P.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the implead applicant, has submitted and in my view rightly that the very writ petition filed without impleading his client as a party ought not to have been entertained. Admittedly, on the complaint of Malkam Venkateswarlu, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and an order of restoration of possession of the land in question in favour of the said Malkam Venkateswarlu was passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner himself has impeaded Malkam Venkateswarlu as respondent No.1 in the appeal filed and pending before respondent No.1. In these admitted facts scenario, I do not find any justification whatsoever for the petitioner in not impleading the said Malkam Venkateswarlu as party respondent in the writ petition because any order granted in this case is likely to adversely affect the interests of the said person. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner made valiant efforts to convince this Court that having regard to the limited grievance of the petitioner, namely, that non-passing of order on the stay application, the said Malkam Venkateswarlu is neither necessary nor proper party to this writ petition, I do not feel convinced with this submission. By no stretch of imagination, it can be held that Malkam Venkateswarlu is not a necessary and proper party to this writ petition. The conduct of the petitioner in not impleading the said Malkam Venkateswarlu evidently lacks bona fides. This Court exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not extend any helping hand in favour of any person, who deliberately omits the necessary and proper parties from being impleaded in the proceedings and seeks to get an order behind their back. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed only on the ground that the petitioner failed to implead necessary and proper party to the writ petition. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 21.04.2009, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.Nos.10722 and 16740 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th July, 2011 VGB