Mahendra Paswan vs The State of Bihar and Others

Case after case is now coming to the Patna High Court. It is a very disturbing feature that dockets are resting on falsehood. The prerogative writ jurisdiction of the High Court is an extraordinary remedy. It is not meant for a liar. It is meant for gentlemen. The time now has come that when the Court issues a writ of certiorari in its prerogative writ jurisdiction, the authority to whom the writ is addressed to simply bring forth the record as a conventional practice, that parties may exchange pleadings this is entirely another matter.

Within one week and with two days yet to go, four cases have engaged the Patna High Court, before this Bench alone, of false records. There is something wrong in the sanctity of pleadings, rendered either by the litigants or by those who plead on their behalf.

This is yet another case. One Madan Kumar filed a writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 8934 of 1996. This petition has had a Respondent Mahendra Paswan. The grievance in the petition succeeded in quashing an order of the State Respondents dated 20 November, 1995 by which Respondent No. 5 Mahendra Paswan had been given seniority. The petition was allowed. Mahendra Paswan lost his seniority.

Respondent No. 5 Mahendra Paswan, in the writ petition, filed a Letter Patent Appeal No. 301 of 1998. This was admitted. The prayer for an ad interim order was not pressed as it was on record that the State Government had given an undertaking on an affidavit of a Deputy Secretary in Road Construction Department one Sheikh Md. Sultan, to the effect to that the order which was quashed in the writ petition would not be given effect to and undertook that it would be subject to the order in the Letters Patent Appeal This record awaits hearing.

The situation was complicated by extraneous factors. Aliens not entered party to the case the arena, one Indrajeet Kumar and others. They filed M.J.C. No. 4006 of 1999; a contempt case. Apparently, they desired the implementation of the order in the writ petition which the State government undertook to keep in abeyance to await the decision in the appeal.

In paragraph 2 of the contempt application M/s Indrajeet Kumar and others made a statement on oath, to the effect, that they had filed C.W.J.C. No. 8934 of 1996 against notification dated 20 November, 1995 by which Sri Mahendra Paswan was placed above the Petitioners by subsequent notification giving retrospective promotion. Is this statement of fact correct? Let array of parties in the writ petition and contempt application be reproduced in column side by side:

C.W.J.C. No. 8934/1996 M.J.C. No. 4006/99

Madan Kumar.... Petitioner 1. Indrajeet Kumar

v.

Laxmi Narayan Paswan

The State of Bthar 3. Vashish Narain

The Commissioner and Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. Navin Kumar

The Deputy Secretary (Management Cell) Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 5. Ram Awadhesh Kumar

The Engineer-in-Chief cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. Surendra Prasad

Sri Mahendra Paswan 7. Anirudh Kumar

Arun Kumar

v.

The State of Bihar

Sri U.K. Sinha, Commissioner and Secretary. Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

Sri S.M. Sultan, Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

Sri Pratyus Sinha, Commissioner cum-Secretary. Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna .... Contemners

The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission .... Proforma Opp. Party

The Secretary, Construction Department. Govt. of Bihar.

A false statement on oath had been rendered. Perjury is on the record. This defiles the sanctity of the proceedings. Mahendra Paswan, Respondent No. 5 now files a Letters Patent Appeal.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of this Respondent was fair enough to make an initial offer that the Court may itself see the record lest later an objection may be taken, whether this Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. The Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the Charter of the Patna High Court. It rests on three cardinal principles: justice, equity and good conscience. The very Charter which enacted the Patna High Court to do purity of justice was on a faith that what will be stated before the High Court will be truth and nothing but the truth and then the Court may help but the Court may not help those who come with untruth and falsehood.

In the circumstances, the Court certifies that technicalities will not stand in the way of this Appellant. If the sanctity of the proceedings at the Bar of the Patna High Court will be shattered with untruth before the Court then the time has come when the lawyers must get together and think where they are leading this Court to. When the situation has come down to this that the Court''s time is being wasted in unraveling in white and black between the truth and falsehood and this becomes a generality then the very purpose of High Court''s prerogative writ jurisdiction has been shattered.

Let notice issue to those who had filed M.J.C. No. 4006 of 1999, namely, Indrajeet Kumar, Laxmi Narayan Paswan, Vashish Narain, Navin Kumar, Ram Awadesh Kumar, Surendra Prasad, Anirudh Kumar and Arun Kumar, and claimed that they had filed a writ petition which they had not.

Since they are all government servants, it is the duty and the obligation of the State establishment to effect service of notice of this order on them and they may appear before the Court and offer their explanation why the Court ought not to take out proceedings against them for offending public justice under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under such other provisions as this Court may deem fit and appropriate.

If this were one matter, then the Court would not issue notice but when it becomes a generality, the attention of this sort of matter needs to be drawn.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, the Chief Minister, Bihar and the Governor of Bihar.

Put up on 19 January, 2004 in the supplementary list after fresh cases.

The effect of the order in M.J.C. No. 4006 of 1999 dated 16 October, 2003 shall remain stayed until further orders.