ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4, and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal and the lis involved in this Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.5 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the inaction on the part of the respondents-authorities for acting on the representation, dt.29.05.2024, made by the petitioner with regard to the construction being made by the 5th respondent in plot Nos.168 & 168/P in survey Nos.11/22, 11/24, 11/26, 11/27, 11/29 & 11/30 situated at Ayyappa Society, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing and on this Court querying with the counsel for petitioner as to what is the alleged illegal and unauthorized construction made by the unofficial respondent, it has been stated that the unofficial respondent had constructed a six floors building without any permission or sanction and that the said construction is also contrary to the decision of this Court in W.P.No.20407 of 2008 & Batch as well as the order of this Court in IA.No.2 of 2020 in AS.No.7 of 2020, whereby it has been held that the Gurukul Trust, to whom the land in the said survey numbers originally belongs, is only a trust and could not have sold the subject land in favour of Ayyappa Cooperative Society without obtaining any permission or sanction from the Endowments Department.

5. However, a perusal of the documents filed along with the writ petition as regards the allegation of inaction on the part of the respondents-authorities in considering the complaint, dt.29.05.2024, discloses that the petitioner on one hand while making complaint before the respondents-

authorities had stated that the unofficial respondent had constructed a seven storied building without permission and while making submissions in the present Writ Petition it has been stated that the said construction is of 6 floors, and this wavering stand of the petitioner before this Court with regard to the actual construction existing and the complaint made while approaching the respondents-

authorities claiming the subject construction to be 7 floors, in the considered view of this Court, is only to draw the attention of the Court so as to cause prejudice against the alleged unauthorized and illegal construction being made by the unofficial respondent.

6. This conduct on the part of the petitioner in making different statements while approaching the authorities and this Court only goes to show that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.

7. It is trite law that the person invoking the equity jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required to make complete and true disclosure of facts and has to approach with clean hands.

[See K.D.Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others 1 , Prestige Lights Limited Vs. State Bank of India 2 , Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 3, In Re:Vijay Kurle and others 4 and Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and others Vs. Prandya Prakash Khadekar and others 5].

8. As noted above, since, the petitioner has taken a wavering stand with regard to the alleged illegal and unauthorized construction made by the unofficial respondent, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition cannot be entertained.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to the Telangana High Court Advocates Association.

10. However, it is made clear that me