HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.14699 of 2002 Dated: 03-02-2011 Between: I. Pullaiah …Petitioner AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kusumanchi Mandal, Khammam District & another Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.14699 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the notice issued by the first respondent under Section 8 of the Revenue Recovery Act in proceedings No.B/615/2002, dated 27.7.2002 and to declare the said notice as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice and to direct the respondents not to recover the amount pursuant to the said notice. According to the petitioner, he was Sarpanch of Jeellacheruvu Gram Panchayat, Kusumanch Mandal, Khammam District during the period from 1988 to 1995. During the said period, he had executed number of works under J.R.Y. scheme by withdrawing the amounts with the joint signature of Panchayat Inspector and Vice President as per the Rules and that he utilized the said amounts for the purpose intended, which is evident from the Audit Report. But, all of a sudden, without issuing any show-cause notice, the first respondent issued the impugned notice under Section 8 of Revenue Recovery Act, which was affixed to the door of the petitioner’s house on 1.8.2002, which is e i x facie arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the demand made for Rs.78,056/- is liable to be set aside. The Tahsildar, Kusumanchi Mandal-first respondent herein filed a counter affidavit stating that a show-cause notice for irregularly spending of the amount by the petitioner and for recovery of the amount under Section 285(1) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 under the arrears of land revenue was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his written explanation, if any, within 30 days and the said show-cause notice was also acknowledged by the petitioner on 28.11.1994, but he had not offered any explanation. Inasmuch as the petitioner had not offered any explanation to the show-cause notice, the second respondent through the proceedings in Rc.No.PI/2066/89, dated 17.4.1995 issued orders for recovery of an amount of Rs.78,056/- from the petitioner being arrears of land revenue. The second respondent also directed to collect the said amount from the person concerned. In the month of May, 2002, the second respondent addressed a DO letter requesting to take special steps for recovery of amount from the petitioner under Revenue Recovery Act and remit the said amount to the funds of the Gram Panchayat concerned and report compliance. Since no explanation was offered by the petitioner, the second respondent confirmed the orders in show-cause notice and steps were taken to recovery the demanded amount by issuing notice under Section 8 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Though the counter affidavit was filed on 30.7.2010, no reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner controverting the allegation made about the issuance of show-cause notice and service of the same on the petitioner. Therefore, it is deemed to have been accepted by the petitioner. But, in para 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that without giving any show- cause notice, suddenly the impugned order has been passed and the same has been affixed to the door of his house, which is factually incorrect. It is well-settled that a party seeking relief by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution, should come forth stating the true facts. Application under Article 226 could be refused without hearing on merits or Rule nisi discharged if, applicant had made a deliberate concealment of material fact with a view to mislead the Court (see Naragoud v. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal & another {1996 (3) ALD 53 (DB)}; Maganlal Chaganlal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others {AIR 1975 SC 648}; and State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. and another {AIR 1977 SC 781}). Under those circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned notice has been issued in violation of principles of natural justice without issuing any show-cause notice. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 03, 2011 Tsr.