THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29747 of 2011 Date: 09.11.2011 Between: M. Ravi Kumar … Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments IV) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29747 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri G.V. Shivaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Devasthanam. 2. At the outset, the petitioner has filed this writ petition by abusing the process of law. 3. The petitioner was granted licence for collection of sarees and blouses offered by the devotees to the Deity of “Ammavaru” for the period from 1.6.2010 to 31.5.2011 for an amount of Rs.1,34,10,000/- in pursuance of the tender notification dated 27.4.2011. On the expiry of the said period, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, for extension of the licence. The said application was rejected on 24.3.2011 on the ground that the temple would be benefited financially by conducting fresh auction. The petitioner, however, approached the 1st respondent-Government by filing a revision petition against the said order of rejection. On a consideration of the matter, the 1st respondent-Government issued orders in Memo.No.21108/Endts.IV.1/2011, dated 31.5.2011 extending the licence for a period of six months beyond 31.5.2011. Aggrieved by the said order, one Kanisetty Lakshmana Rao filed W.P.No.15825 of 2011 contending that the extension of licence is not permissible and the right for collection of offerings should be held only by way of public auction and also expressed his willingness to take the licence for the period from 1.6.2011 to 31.5.2012 for an amount of Rs.1,63,99,999/-. At the hearing of the said writ petition, the petitioner herein opposed the interim relief contending that any stay would hamper the collection causing inconvenience to him and also to the institution. The petitioner, therefore, opposed the interim relief by offering to pay the amount of Rs.1,63,99,999/- as offered by Sri Kanisetty Lakshmana Rao, petitioner in the said writ petition. Since the petitioner herein himself voluntarily came forward to pay the said amount, this Court did not grant any stay and, at the same time, by order dated 13.6.2011 in W.P.M.P.No.18966 of 2011 in W.P.No.15825 of 2011, permitted the petitioner herein to collect the offerings subject to payment of the amount of Rs.1,63,99,999/-, as offered by the petitioner therein. Accordingly, the petitioner herein has been collecting the offerings. 4. Subsequently, the said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner therein on 23.8.2011. At the time of permitting the petitioner therein to withdraw the writ petition, it was not brought to the notice of this Court that there was an interim order under which the petitioner herein had agreed to pay Rs.1,63,99,999/- as offered by the petitioner therein. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent- Government passed the impugned order in Memo.No.21108/Endts.IV.1/2011, dated 7.10.2011 calling upon the petitioner herein to pay the difference of amount. Taking advantage of the withdrawal of the said writ petition, the petitioner herein approached the 1st respondent-Government by way of representation dated 27.10.2011 requesting to recall the impugned order dated 7.10.2011 and permit him to continue to collect the offerings as per the previous amount. As the 1st respondent- Government has declined to do so, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. The aforesaid facts clearly indicate that the petitioner has approached this Court by abusing the process of law. In normal course, the petitioner herein is not entitled for extension of licence beyond the lease period and any further licence would have been granted only by way of public auction. Since the 1st respondent- Government had extended the licence of the petitioner herein, which was challenged in W.P.No.15825 of 2011, this Court would have examined the validity of the said order and also would have considered the interim relief sought for by the petitioner therein on its own merits. However, since the petitioner herein himself voluntarily came forward to pay the amount offered and on the statement made by him, this Court did not consider to grant the interim relief sought for in the said writ petition on merits. 6. It is true that the said writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn by order dated 23.8.2011. But, as noted above, the effect of the interim order dated 13.6.2011 passed in the said writ petition was not brought to the notice of this Court. It is not unreasonable to assume that there could be any amount of collusive understandings between the petitioner herein and the petitioner in the said writ petition. A person, who has obtained an order by preventing this Court from examining the matter as per law, cannot be encouraged to seek any relief. 7. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The aforesaid facts clearly demonstrate the abuse of the process of law, which deserve imposition of exemplary costs. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) which should be paid to the Member Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court Buildings, Hyderabad, within a period of two weeks form today. 9. Post the writ petition after two weeks under the caption “FOR COMPLIANCE”. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 09.11.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29747 of 2011 09.11.2011 (Msr)