G. Balasaraswati and 8 others V. The Union of India and 14 others

WP/414/2021

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by several petitioners against the Union of India and other governmental bodies, seeking judicial intervention to initiate actions against certain private respondents for their involvement in benami transactions and related financial misconducts. The petitioners argued that these transactions involved tax evasion and money laundering, and requested the court to monitor the investigations and ensure prosecution under the relevant laws. The court, however, dismissed the petition, citing the lack of sufficient grounds to warrant the requested judicial actions and highlighting the ongoing civil suit which addresses similar issues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 738930 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Vineet Narain vs. Union of India, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences vs. C. Parameswara, Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961, Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NAMAVARAPU RAO; G M K PRASAD; B NARASIMHA SARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH SANGHI
• Keywords: Benami Transactions; Disciplinary Proceedings; Money laundering; Tax Evasion; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 151; 226

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Between: 1. G. Balasaraswati, W/o. G. Aaggeshwar Rao, Aged.65 Years, R/o H.No. 1-B-50, Krishna Nagar Colony, 137 Prendetghast Road, Secunderabad, Occ. Household. 2. Usha Rani, Wo S. Raju, Aged. 67 Yrs, Rl/o Occ. Household,Rl/o Plot Nos.267 and 268, New Vasavi. Nagar, Kakaguda, Secunderabad 3. S.Sudhir, S/o Late S. Shankar Rao, Ace 65 Yrs, Occ. Retd Pvt Service, R/o Plot Nos. 267 and 268, New Vasavi. Nagar, Kakaguda, Secunderabad 4. A. Geetha Rani, Wo A. Surender, Aged. 67 Yrs, Rl/o Plot No. 256, New Vasavi Nagar, Lane No.'10, Kakaguda, Secunderabad, Occ. Household_ 5. P. Shobha Rani, W/o P. Srinivas, Aged. 63 Yrs, Ft/o Plot No. 259, New Vasavi Nagar, Lane No.'10, Kakaguda, Secunderabad, Occ. Household. 6. Arun.V. Trikande, S/o. Late.Vasant.B..,Trikande, Aged. 58 Yrs, R/o. 805, Chirapur Co-op Housing Society, 1Sth Cross, 8th N/ain Mblldshwaram, Bengaluru, Occ. pvt servtce. 7. Alok.L. Chandekar, S/o. Late N.C. Lakshmi Narayana, Aged. 61 Yrs, R/o. Flat No 102, 2nd Floor, Saraswati Kunj, Old No. 40i2, S.D Road, Secunderabad, Occ. Retd Service. 8. T. Shankar Rao, S/o. Late T.L Narasimha Rao, Aged.66 Yrs, Rio. # 14, Manju Auraj Enclave, lVladhusudhan Nagar, Ivlalkajgiri, Hy<1erabad, Occ. Retd. 9. T. Vinay Kumar, S/o. Late Dr. T.L Narasimha Rao, Aged. 64 Yrs, R/o. H.No. 1-4-190139, Bhaskar Rao Nagar, Phase-1, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad, Occ. retd ...PETITIONERS ANO 1 The Union of lndia, IVinistry of Revenue, rep. by it's Secretary Revenue, North Block, New-Delhi The Central Board of Direct Taxes, rep. by its Chairman, North Block, Secretariat Building New-Delhi. The Principle Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Telangana lncome Tax Towers, A.C Guards, Hyderabad. The Director General of lncome Tax, (lnv), Aaykar Bhavan, Fateh Maidan Stadium Road, Hyderabad. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Benami Prohibition Unit) Aaykar Bhavan, Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad. Irzl/s. Nadella Estates Ltd., rep. by it's Managing Director N. Vijaya Bhaskar Chowdhary S/o. Peddappa Naidu, Aged. Majoi, Regd Office atFlat No. 104, H.No. 6-3-638/9/3, Sheshagiri Mansion, Anandnagar Colony, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. Nade_ila Vijay Bhaskar Chowdhary, S/o. Late Peddappa Naidu, Aged. Major, R/o. f lat No. 301 , Varuna Block, 3rd Floor, lVy Home Navadweep, Near Cyber City Towers, Madhapur, Hyderabad-81, Occ. ieal estate. Contd. . . 3 4 5 6 7 WRIT PETITION No. 414 OF 2021 2 . [::t6i:fl:i,1ff;H3;,i??SliiJ,,:,^,?ffi1T,t59$1^i'3# t%?l Jvlaror Fii,o Frat ?;*;;. M;;;rpui,-Hvberanao-B'l' occ real estate' n Y3 r \")X?fl .u Bf#fl l 3 f i,3i? . il,\"J [:\"#,1? ls lxs !fi :'f\"%\"\"\" $? : t ry?\"'J3l'] \" ttlLon\"prt, Hyderabad -8'1 Occ real eslale' 10. Mis P.L Computers Office at # 51-B' Ground Floor' Chenov Trade Centre' Park \"Uilb\":l'tit[b\"f;i\"i,'dl:;t13:Eligltru;,te:,.,9i,,?,,f, ,X.';\"111,\"0 ilXiri c\"r\"\"1l. Khairtabad Hyderabad 11. Javant Jain' S/o. R S Jain Aged 47 Yrs' FJo # 51-B Ground Floor' Chenoy ' ' i;;;;'i;;iie, part< Lane setunderabad occ real estate l2.Avanii Meadows (p) Ltd Office at H No l-1 127tz-Bansilal Nagar' Budvel' Raiender Nagar, Hyoera#i:3o ;;; u'y Hltanag'ng Director Tulast Das Gouragarr S/o. G.B Ramulu 13.Tulasi Das Gouragari, S/o G B Ramulu' Aced Maior' R/o Plot No SRT-350' '\" a.R Ni;d;, Hvberiuto-sa, occ' real estate 14 Aravind Kumar Dobba, S/o Dobba Narasimha' Aged lvlaior' Fyo H No' 1 - 1 -1 05. Kamuni coronvl' H'\"a\"'iJt''iui\"ii!r.nig\"' Hvder5bad-3o occ rea l estate. 15.Asif Ali Baig, S/o' Late G' Baig' Aged',Major' R/o Vertex Pleasent Apartments' '\" fii;;;'p;t i6Jo, nvoeraoad' occ' real estate' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in tn\"\"ttrii'I'iiiir\"Jt'eiewitn' the High Court mav be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Oraer or direction more particuiarly in the nature 'of a Writ of Mandamus directing th;';;p;t;;;i1 1 t\"' s herein to iake appropriate action aoalnst the respondents o i\" i i herein including their orosecution as contemplated uider the lncome Tax n\"t i\"SO'ir\"J ifre Prohibitron of Benami Property Transactions Act.1988 (as amended ov \"Ji*\"\"ii')o-lO) anO the Prevention of lvloney Laundering Act in respect of the multifirYro;;;;i;ti;i\" i1ilt^q:l\"it includins such other acts of ommissions and commrssrons incruding tax evasion. money circulation and money laundering which may \"\";; ,\"\" iighil. i1.,\" course of investigation and be pleased to pass such further or otn\"r. oioi\"\"t tnit H]\"n ur\" c\"urt may Jeem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ' For the reasons stated in the accompanying Affidavit, it is humbly prayed that this Hon ble Court mav o\" p'\"jt!o\"io;;;; ;\" Jppropriated Writ order or direction for IMONITORING tne tnvestigaiil\" u\"llg t\"\"O\"ied by the respondents 1 to 5 relating to Benami Transactions 'nd i;*\";;;io\"n unJ n,,,on\"y iu'ndering by the respondents 6 to 15 mentioned in the Comiii\"t'i\"i\"O, ii-08-2019 and 23-OB\"2O17 bv this Hon'ble Hioh court as per the |.utio oT',in\" vr\"\"t Narain case Judqment reported in AIR 1996 S.b.at Pase No.3386 f\"' ;;t';; ;n'effective inu-etiioitlon and adiudication and consequential prosecution;i i;;';:d;;\"ntt o to 15 he-rein bv wav of a'continuous Nrandamus' and be pleasi io-p\"J tu\"n further o-r' other oider or' orders as this 'ff;:il';;; ;uv 06\"' rii '\"0 i,.op\"'in the circumstances of the case' For the reasons stated in the accompanVinS nifl!1'yit' it is humbly prayed that this Hon,bre court may ne pteaseo to issue in appropriate writ, order or direction more oarticularly in the nature \"il W;t o'f\" l'f unA\"\". Oi'\"\"ting the disciplinary authorities of the respondents 2 to '; i;;il i\" i;ltitute .oisciptinaiv proceedings against the delinquent officers (found io'O! torf 'ai\"g with the respondents 6 to 15 herein) under Rute i3 of the central cir.,t\"#ri;;iciisslfication, clntrol and Appeal) Rules' 1965 and be pleased to pass \"ti\"i\"tn\"t'or' other order or' orders as this Hon'ble Court ;ri;;;, fit and proper in the circumstances of the case' .// 3 /n lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to place on record the action taken report in respect of the complaint dated: 21 -08-2019 and 23-08-2019. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI RAKESH SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, (ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G.M.K. PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5: SRI B. NARASIMHA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 15:---- The Court at admission stage made the following: ORDER V 't'ul.t ilo oI t{. l}t.li slLl .lt sTl('l] l.s.lt, 1.{('llA l)ltA [l,, o ANI) l-llE IIO Ol,R, lll-l: SItl .]L S1-lCE f. l OD KL 1. ll. Writ l'}etition o.J l.l ol'2021 ORITER : @er Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao) In this Writ Petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the Union of India (l'' respondent), the Ccntral Board of I)irect Taxes, New Delhi (2nd respondent), the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Telangana (3'd respondent), the Director General of lncorne 'l-ax (lnvc'stigation), Ilydcrabacl 14'r' respondent) and the Dy. Commissiouer of lncome Tax (Benami Prohibition Unit), Flyderabad (-i\"' responc'lcnt) to iniriatc action against resporrclent nos.6 to l5 in the r'it Petrtion inclLrding the ir ptosce ution Ltndcr lncomc I'ax .Act. lc)6 I rncl the I'rohibition o1' Ilcnami Property 'l'ransactions Act. 1988 (Act -.l5 ol 1988) (as arnenclcd by Act 43 ol 20 l6) ancl thc Prevetrtion o1' Vloncl, l-ar.l-rdering Act, 2002 in respect ol ce ain real-estate transactions, allegedly undeftaken by respondent nos.6 to 1 5. 2, In addition ttrereto, they also seek monitoring of the investigation being conducted by respondent nos.l to 5 relating to benan-ri transactions, tax evasion and money laundering by respondent nos.6 to l-5 as mentic.rned in the complaint dt.21.08.2019 and 2i.08.2019 by this C'ourt as per the.judgment ot'thc' Supreme CoLur in L-- MSR.J & TVK..I wp_414 2021 Vineet Narain vs. Union of Indiar ibr ensuring effective investigaiion, adjudication and also prosecution ol. respondent nos.6 k) 1 5 b1, u,a1, of a continuou s manclamus. 3. Petitioners also scek a ll,rit o/. ,l,futtdctmn.s dirccting thc disciplinary aurhorities of respondent nos.2 to 5 to institutcr disciplinary proceedings against delinquent officers of the Incorne J.ax Department w.ho are lound to be in collusion with respondcnt nos.6 ro l5 under Rule l3 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Conrrol and Appeal) Rules, 1965. 4. Even before filing this Writ petition, rhe petitioners had rnsriruted a Civil Suit O.S.No.26 ol 2020 on tl.re file of IX i dditional District .ludge Commercial Court, Sangareddy against CTIITI respondent nos.6 to l4 and others fbr pattition of certain land admeasuring Acs.g7.26 gts. in i {andal ol Sangareddlr I)istrict Koiiur .rillage. Ramachandrapurarr (tbrmerly Medak Distr.icr) ( sLrir schedule property) ancl tbr separate possessiop of their specific share in proporlion to what is n-rentioned in their respeclive sale deecls 5. We shall briefly touch upon the case of the petitioners in thc Civil Suit O.S.No.26 of 2020 filed by them against the resporrdenL nos.6 to l5 and others 6' (a) The petitioners contend that rhey had purchased certain prots admeasuring 666 Sq. yds each in the property which is described in ' lrooo; z s.c.c teo .t ,t-- 1.. I4SR.J &'IVK,J ! p I l1 2021 thc suit schedule fi.om one R.R. MadhLrsuclan Retldy ( l\" del'endant in Lhe said suit) under registered Sale Deeds executed in the year 1984' but contend that in the absence of a lay-out sanctioned either by the Gram Panchayat or by the Director, Town and Country Planning or by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (presently Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority), it is impossible to identify the location of these Plots. (b) lt is their contention that the l\" defendant had sold other plots to clelendant nos. l0 to 350 in the suit and even those plots are not capable of identitlcation. (c) They contend that thc I \" del-endant had Ieft rvith him ar.ound Acs.39.00 in the strit scheclulc plopr'rl ' lbr sale to cerlain third parties other than the petitioners and delendant nos 8 to 350; because of the ambiguity regarding the precise location of all the plots purchased by the petitioners and defendant nos'10 to 350, they are all co-owners and joint possessors of the subject land; and filing of the said suit for partition is the only solution for resolution of their predicament. (d) It is contended that the I't defendant had executed a registered sale deed dt.24.12.2002 being document No'8493 I 2002 in th'our ol 2''d defendarrt (6'h respondent in thc Writ Petition ) lor an extent of Acs.39.36 gts. within the suit schedule property strppressing that he had already solcl plots by executing 350 registered sale deeds L .. t.. MSR.J & TVK.J ,t) .l i4 2{)21 in favour of petitioners and other defendants; and that the 1't defendant also executed another registered sale deed dt.24.12.2002 (Document No.17953 / Z0O5) in favour of 2nd defendant (6,r, respondent in the Writ Petition) for a separate extent of Acs.50.3 I gts in the suit schedule property without disclosing that he had alrea<1y sold plots bv executirrg 350 registered sale deeds in lbvour. o1' petitioners and other delendants alreadv. (e) It is also contended that even the lands covered uncler these two documents cannot be identified precisely and that ther, are illegal, null and void on the basis of a maxirn nemo dat quod non habet; thar both these documents dt.24.12.2002 constitute 'benanri transactions' as defined under Section 2(9) of the prohibition of Be.rami Property Transactions Act, l ggg because the 2nd defendant (6th respondent ir.r the Writ petition) utilized Rs.36,27.000/- to purchase tl.re land even though it had only paid-up share capital of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is also contendecl that a complaint dt.21.0g.2009 had been lodged ivith respondent nos.4 and 5. but no action was raken. (f) It is also contended rhat the 2nd delendant (6,r,respondcnt in the writ Petition) had also purchased various poftions i, thc suit schedule lar-rd ll'om the vendors ol' the petitiorrcrs and dc'le.dant nos. I0 to 350 under six Sale Deeds executed in the year 2005; and it is i,rpossible for the 2nd defendant to do so by generating totar sare consideration of Rs.46,32,750/- plus Registration and Stamp duty charges as its share capital was only Rs.9,00,6301-; mdit is contended )r C 5 that these documents are also 'benanri tratlstlct ions', and erltries in the {SR.J & I K,] rrp 1ll 1(t1l 2\"'l defendant's Books and Income Tax Returns are all fictitious entl'les. (g) It is further contended that the 2nd defendant illegally sold a portion of the suit schedule land to the 3'd defendant, M/s. P.L. Computers ( l0'h respondent in the Writ Petition) under registered Sale Deed dt.2g.O3.2OO5 for Rs.23.62,500/-; and the 3'd def'enclant / l0'r' respondent had sold portions of the same to the 4'r' deienclant. viz., M/s. Avani Meadows (P) Lrcl. 112'r' respondenL in tlre Writ Petition) under registered Sale deecl dt.23. I I '20 I 6 and dr. 14.06.20 I7 fbr Rs.3,95,20,000/-; and the 41r' clelendant in turn solcl a portion ol'the land purchased by it to the 5'r' det'endant i.e., Asil Ali Baig (15'h respondent in the Writ Petition) vide registered Sale Deed dt.03.08.2017. It is contended that all these documents are 'benami transactions'. 7. ln this Writ Petition, it is alleged that all the above transactions are benami iransactions prohibited by Act 45 of 1988 , that they are all doculnents rvhcre thc considcration was under valued to avoid stamp cluty, registration and transfer duty ancl that it is impossible fbr the 6'r' respondent to generate the sale consideration of Rs.l.5 crores to pLrrchase the property uncler the 8 sale deeds nlentioned above rvith its paid-up share capital a mere Rs.9,00,630/-. lt is also contended that all entries in the Books of Account ancl Income f'ax Retums olthe 6tr' resy'6ndent arc flctitious and sale consideration amount was not lSR..r & I YK.I f lt.1 11 :t reflected therein. Sirnilar allegations are leveled against respondent 6 8. Petitioners contend that they had instructed their counsel Sri Rakesh Sanghi, Advocate, to lodge a complaint with the entire hierarchy of the Income Tax Department authorities and he Iodued conrplaint on 21.08.2019 and 23.08.2019. 9. It is next contended that petitioners came to know through 'eliable sources that t.e respondent nos. 4 and 5 are coiruding rvith rhc respondent nos.6 to l5 ancl their battery ol skilled Iawvers by misinterpreting the statutes mentioned above and taking a vierv that : (i) Complainl. and the subsequent prosecution under the prohibition of Benanti propefty Transactions Act. lggg (as amended by Act No.43 / 2016) both are bamed bv limitation. (ii) The Respondent has already paid Income Tax & Wealth Tax on the money utilized to acquire benami propefty and therefbre, the transaction / acquisition ol property ceases to be a benami transaction on account of the sante havirrg been assessed to Income.l-ax and Wealth l.ax of the Benm idars and the Real Owners. (iii) The arnount olthe sale consideration mentionecl in all the sale deeds should be taken as the sole basis lbr nos. 10 and i2 also. V MSR.J & TVK.J p 4l,l 2021 determining the value of the benami transaction irrespective of the market value ofthe property' (ir) Even if the acquisition of property constituted a benami transaction, the subsequent sale of the said property by the benamiclar rvor.rld not cflect the benami property sold to a bonafide purchaser who had no knou'ledge or, was ignorant of the benami tlansaction.\" 10.Ilolvevernolesponselt.onrrcsptll'rclcntslto5isllledinsLrpport ol'the above assumptions olthe petitioners. I l. 1-he petitioners then indicate why each of these possible stands allegedly being taken by tl.re respondent nos'4 and 5 cannot be accepted by giving certain explanations for them' 12. Therefbre, they seek the reliet's mentioned supra against respondent nos.l to 5. 13. Sri Rakesh Sanghi, Counsel for petitioners, emphasized that pcrsons who indulged in benami transactions/lxoney laundering and evasion of income tax like respondent nos.6 to l5 cantrot be allowed 1() gt-r scot-f ree and escape the cotlseqLlences ol the statlltes such as Act l-. ol l9tJ8. thc lttcotttc '[-ar r ct. 196 I and the Pre v'ention o1' Mone-v- Laundering Act, 2002; and this Court, by granting the above reliet's sought in the Writ Petition, shotrld ensure that Rule of l-aw prevails' Ile also cited several decision-* including the decision in Vineet L Narain supra) for the above contention. He also relied on the Jt Istt..r & l K.r $| ,| l lrrt l decision of the Supre.re cou'r in Nationar Institute of Nfentar Health and Neuro Sciences vs, C. parameswara2 to contend that rnerely because a civil suit is pending, a party is not precluded l.rorr instituting a Writ Petition on the same issue. 14, We have noted the above submissions. 15. While we do not wish to comment on the merits ol the pleadings of petitioners in the civil suit since it is sub judice. we are of the opinior.r without knowing the defence of defendants in the suit (because written Statcnrcnt oI the defendants lias not been tired) ir is dif|cult to get a cornplete picture to draw any conclusion in the matter. Also, petitioners by leading et,idence in the suit and b.v cross_ examining witnesses ror respo,rrerrt nos.6 to r5 courrr nr.ove their contentions in the suit. This Cout.r is not inclined to go into the several contentions advanced in the Writ petition and conducr a parallel enquiry to that which would happen in the civil suit when it would go to trial. 16. We are also of the opinion that on the basis of the material placed before this Court by the petitioners, i.e., copies of complaints made by counsel for petitioners, plaint in O.S.No.26 of 2020 and copies of the sale deeds ref'ened to above, no adverse inference can be drarrn against respondcrrt nos.,-l to 5 of any collusion s.ith r.esportrlcnr nos.6 to l5 at all. We are also of the opinion that aspersions cannot be cast on otl'icers of Go'ernment Departments sorely on the basis oi- 8 (:00- )t s('c 156 t ::9 MSR.J & TVK.J ! p 114_2021 suspicions and assumptions of the petitioners tarnishing their reputation. 17. In our opinion, there are several disputed qLlestions of t-act which wor.rtd arise for consideration in the suit liled by tl-re petitioners against 350 defendants including respondent nos. 6 to l5 herein' 18. It appears that the petitioners want to buttress their pleadir-rgs in the- suit by extracting intbrniation fiom the Income Tax authorities regarding respondent nos. 6 to I5 who are opponents ofpetitioners by filing the instant Writ Petition; and also wish to use the forum of the High Court to probably coerce the respondent nos'6 to 15 for some settlement. 19. In this regard we may quote the recent decision of the Supreme (lour1 in Tehseen P.onawalla v, Union ot' Indiar in rvhich certai, observations, though made in the context o1'public interest litigation, cclLrally apply to cases like the instant one. The Supreme Court benroaned: ''98. f'rit.olous or nloti|uled pelitions. oslen:;ibl.t invoking the ptrblic intercsl detract .front lhe tinle and uttenliott *'hich courls nlust devole lo genuine causes. 'l'his Court has a long list oJ pencling cases uthere the personr lihetty of('itizens is involved' 'l\"hose who ay,ail trial or thc resolttlion of trppcul's ttguinst ortlers of conviclion hctve a legilimate expectation of early justice. It is a traves o.f iustice for the resources of the legal 5wlem to be CONSU merl bv an avalanche ofm isdirected oetilions t (zott) o scc rz, ar page 148 I p u ro o r t e dlv fr I e d i n t h e nu b I i c i 4 t e r I t t Uhtc: h.-!p g!dW-;qA!jU. E {.found to oromote a pers-o-!.q!- business or oolitical asenda :: l0:: ]VTSR.J & I' IK..I wt -.1lJ llrl I i, 'I iti.: lut.t. /)r/1.//(,(1 l)1 1)til tt. r)/ r,r, /f(/ inl(:1.(, l lt liltgtr/irtn. !hert,is tt,gju :t dun.o(1.thLtt il thi. it:ttt, o/ o//t/it. it rrllottttl to ronlinu( it lotrld Ii,r.lorr.r/t tlt,nLrlc tlr dlicuL.t.ol tht.iutlit.iLi .i.i:t/cil hr dc,tructin,q.f)rtm thc ,.rbiiit.t. of !ltc c.otrrt to ie .otc ii litnt' ttttrl rt,rttttrt (,( 1.) arlt(r. ,.r ht,h lt,giti,,,trttt,l.t rt,tltrit.c (t c,ntit)!l ll rtr.:t' :rill. .:trc.lt ?t,ritit!!!:..p!!q !-AJ.!J!_L: !!ty4gg1. 1 .;1 rly tlllly1li1l 'l-hi.s hct.t th et1,9 t 0 t:11 thc credi insliluliotl. 0ntl untlarminin tu h lic altlt o(laL antl the rul Th n when th t11 e0 0len the courtis utilised Lo_sqll!Le_ extr0-iLtdici cy ol ol score.t Bttsiness rivalries have lo be re.tolt,er) in u competitive markct for goods and services. political ritalries haye b be resttlved itr the greut hall of democracl, tvhen the electorate w)tes its representath'es in and out of o.flice. Courts resolve diqtutes about legul r.ights and entitlements. Court: pr(,iact the rule of I ov. Th ery-ts ( dttlslrJlllllJlt!_ialic_rg1lt_ rrl-qt-,i1111;4/9 il.,li51ttr41.y..ly1ya1yl llt! t:t!, r)l !.taqJ !/4!:q!Lt !t,. Q - !,' rJ j,-) Ll_t ! J -ry! l i.l: t r t l llllCt: ( o | ; t 1 1, 1 5 ;,. ; l l t J t l i t r l t 2{1. c llc o1'tlre oitinioi! tltrrL llliirl ol thrs ,rr, nt I)clitioit is ar.r al.u..:- .1'procc'ss 01'r-loun anci this (-o,\"rrl cilr.ot aUori itse['io bc rrsccr rrs rr privatc inlcstieator b .the fctit;r,ners to l)rr) c tjlcit.c()t1t.liiops 1r ii:c ci'il suit or to coercc trrc rcsponcicrts tbr a possibre setLreiri.t Lrr(rcr. threat ol-a prosecution f.om responclents 1.-5 url(ler the various statrlcs re felred to above. 21. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion lhat the Writ Petition does not deserve to be enteftained by tnis Court, anrJ it is accordingly dismissed at adrnission stage with costs of Rs.5,000i- 1o be paid to the I,ligh Court t.egal Serviccs Cornmittcc by the pelitioner.s within four (04) weeks from to-dav. ::ll:: MSR,J & ]'VK,.I wp_414 2A2t 22. As a sequel, misccllaneous petitions pcncling il any in this Writ l)r'tiliorr. sltrtll s ta nrl clcrsctl. To, MEMORANDUM OF COSTS WP. No. 414 ot 2021 Cost Quantified by Hon'ble Court Rs. Ps. 5,000 - 00 TOTAL 5,000 - 00 That the Petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from date of order. SD/. T.KRISHNA KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri. Rakesh Sanghi, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Namavarapu Ra.jeshwar Rao, Assistant Solicitor General [OPUC] 4. One C.C. to Sri. G.l ,4.K. Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One C.C. to Sri. B. Narasimha Sarga, Standing Counsel for lncome Tax (OPUC) 6. Two C.D. Copies Prk I - --- HIGH COURT DATED 2910112021 ORDER WP.No.414 of 2021 Dismissing the WP' at the admission stage with costs' 15 rEB 2021 k r+ n Og HE sla .!FATCH c0 * e) ,, "