The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.12975 of 2010 Dated 3rd August, 2010 Between: Syed Khaja …Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and 3 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.K.Harish Kumar Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent Nos.5 & 6: Mr.V.Srinivas The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 and his subordinate officers in stopping construction work of the petitioner and trying to dispossess him from the property bearing house No.18-8-225/7/50, admeasuring 250 square yards at Habeeb Bagh, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with his peaceful possession of the said property. I have heard Sri K.Harish Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Counsel, who filed implead petition being WPMP.No18123 of 2010, which has been ordered today. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the above-mentioned property and allegedly obtained a decree for permanent injunction on 31-12-2009 in OS.No.3778 of 2008 on the file of the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against one Mohammed Sharfuddin and another. According to the petitioner, he is in possession of the property and when the above-said persons, who are the judgment debtors, sought to interfere with his possession, he gave a complaint, which was registered as Crime No.249 of 2008 of Santoshnagar Police Station on 20-11-2008. The petitioner alleged that at the instance of the judgment debtors, respondent No.4 has been harassing and is preventing him from enjoying his property. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondent Nos.1 to 4 on instructions submitted that the petitioner is accused in Crime Nos.35 of 2006 and 3 of 2009 of Kanchanbagh Police Station and Santoshnagar Police Station respectively and that as he is a rowdy, a rowdy sheet was opened against him. She further stated that except proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law in connection with the above-said criminal cases, so far no interference has been caused by respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the civil disputes. In the affidavit filed in support of WPMP.No.18123 of 2010, the implead applicants (hereinafter referred to as “respondent Nos.5 and 6”) have submitted that they are the owners of the property in question and that when the petitioner sought to highhandedly dispossess them and resorted to the acts of digging pits and dumping construction material on the site in question, they have filed OS.No.514 of 2009 in the Court of the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for permanent injunction and that the said Court has granted temporary injunction vide IA.No.80 of 2009, dated 27-01-2009, against the petitioner and that though the petitioner has entered his appearance in the said suit, he has not filed counter-affidavit so far. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submitted that when the petitioner continued his interference despite an order of injunction granted against him, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have approached the civil Court, for a direction, for grant of Police Aid and that as the said application is not being disposed of from February, 2010, they have filed WP.No.14214 of 2010 before this Court for Police Protection and that the same is pending. The fact that the petitioner has suffered an order of injunction in OS.No.514 of 2009 and that the same is still in force is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner failed to disclose this fact in his Writ Petition. In my opinion, the said fact is very material because an order of injunction was granted in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 on the finding that they are in possession of the property in question. Therefore, it is necessary for the petitioner to assert that such a finding is not correct and that he is in possession, when he has approached this Court with the complaint that the Police are interfering with his alleged possession. Suppression of this material fact is fatal to the Writ Petition. I am of the view that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands and therefore, he is not entitled to the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 that obviously to pre-empt respondent Nos.5 & 6 in obtaining relief in their Writ Petition filed for grant of Police Aid, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to the Police not to interfere. The whole conduct of the petitioner does not inspire confidence and is obviously devious. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.16344 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 3rd August, 2010 lur