'Approached Court With Unclean Hands': AP High Court Rejects Review Plea After Finding Bidders Obtained Interim Orders By Suppressing Facts
Ritika Verma
6 Jun 2026 7:45 PM IST
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by bidders in an agricultural market auction, holding that they had suppressed material facts and obtained interim orders despite being aware that the auction process had been completed and agreements executed with successful bidders.
The Court found the review petition to be not maintainable and an abuse of process of law.
The petitioners had filed a plea seeking review of an order dated October 28, 2024 passed in a contempt case relating to the auction of shops conducted by the Sarvepalli Agricultural Market Committee. The petitioners had sought review of findings that they had filed the contempt proceedings for extraneous reasons, suppressed material facts, and were liable to pay costs of Rs. 2,000 each.
It was contended by the petitioners that agreements claimed to have been executed with successful bidders were antedated and that the Court had erroneously concluded they were aware of the completion of the auction process.
Article 215 confers inherent contempt powers on High Courts, whereas Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 governs contempt proceedings under the statute.
Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda held the review petition to be not maintainable, finding no apparent error in the order under review.
Dismissing the petition, the court observed:
“On perusal of the facts as stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners herein have mislead this Court by suppressing material facts and invited the interim orders of this Court. Therefore, the petitioners herein are not entitled any relief who suppressed the material facts and who approached this Court with unclean hands and who invited the interim orders by suppressing the material facts before this Court....Accordingly, this Court while dismissing the Contempt Petition against the respondents and imposed the costs against the petitioners herein.
As contended by learned counsel for the respondents the review petitioners filed this Review Petition misleading the facts at Para-3 of the affidavit in Review I.A.No.2 of 2024 in C.C.No.5763/2023, as if the 4th respondent through his learned Standing Counsel submitted to this Hon'ble Court that they would consider petitioners' representation dated 17.07.2023 and based on the said submission only this Hon'ble Court disposed of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent herein to consider the representation dated 17.07.2023. But the fact remains that the petitioners themselves prayed for disposal of the representation without there being any remarks offered by the learned Standing Counsel at the admission stage".
The court said that the order under Review dated 28.10.2024 neither suffered with any error nor mistake.
To overcome the objection on maintainability of the review petition, the petitioners relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M.M. Thomas v. State of Kerala, (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 666 contending that the High Court's plenary powers under Article 215 include the power to review orders for errors apparent on the face of the record. However, the Court observed that M.M. Thomas (supra) did not assist the petitioners as the order under review contained no apparent error or mistake, and therefore the review petition was not maintainable.
The Court further said that a review petition in contempt proceedings was not maintainable. In doing so, it relied on Himanshu Joshi v. Utpal Kumar, 2020 SCC OnLine UTT 1127 which distinguished the High Court's inherent constitutional powers under Article 215 from contempt proceedings initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act. Referring to the decision, the Court noted that High Court powers under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, is absolutely independent under a special statute, as is not an equivalent power of the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
The Court found that the petitioners suppressed material facts and obtained interim orders by portraying the completed auction process as incomplete.
The Court further held that the petitioners had initiated multiple legal proceedings as a weapon to secure undue advantages and pursue ulterior motives, and accordingly dismissed the review petition.
Case Title: Nagalla Venkateswarlu & Ors. v. Sri Rahul Pandey, IFS & Ors.
Case Number: Review I.A. No. 2 of 2024 in C.C. No. 5763 of 2023
Counsel for Petitioners: J.V. Phaniduth
Counsel for Respondents: C. Sumon, Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, B. Prakasam (Senior Standing Counsel for AMC)
