Himachal Pradesh High Court
Order Reserved On:12.12.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 18 December, 2024
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
1 2023:HHC:14803 NO. 5IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CMP No. 12713 of 2022 in CWPIL No. 56 of 2022 Order Reserved on:12.12.2024 Date of decision: 18.12.2024 Gram Panchayat Old Manali ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Addl. A.Gs. with Ms. Priyanka Chauhan and Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Dy.
A.Gs. for respondents-State.
Mr. R. L. Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arjun Lall, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.
Mr. Sarthak Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No. 7.
Mr. C. N. Singh and Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocates for respondent No. 8.
Mr. Bimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate (through V.C.) with Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondents No. 9 and 10.
Mr. Aditya Chauhan, Advocate, for Ms. Manjula Kumari.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, ACJ CMP No. 12713 of 2022 The instant Public Interest Litigation is purportedly to have been filed on behalf of the Gram Panchayat Old 2 2023:HHC:14803 Manali, District Kullu, H.P. through its President/Pradhan Gram Panchayat Old Manali Smt. Monika Bharti wife of Om Prakash, resident of Village and Post Office Old Manali, Tehsil Manail, District Kullu, H.P. for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-
"(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to take the necessary and appropriate action against the respondent No. 5 and the right of the local residents or the beneficiaries may kindly be ordered to be maintained efficaciously and speedily."
2. The affidavit bears the following address:-
"Smt. Monika Bharti W/o Sh. Om Prakash, R/o Village, P.O. & Tehsil Old Manali, District Kullu, H.P."
And the deponent has also signed the said affidavit, which is duly attested by the Oath Commissioner, Smt. Manjula Kumari, Advocate, and the deponent therein had been duly identified as Smt. Monika Bharti by Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate, who had been representing the petitioner.
3. Notice of this petition came to be issued vide order dated 18.07.2022, however, before the respondents had filed their replies, the writ petition was withdrawn at the request of the petitioner through her counsel as is evident from the order dated 30.08.2022, which reads as under:-
"Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present petition. The petition is allowed to be withdrawn.3
2023:HHC:14803
2. The petition to stand disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of."
4. After passing the aforesaid order, the respondent No. 5 on 08.09.2022 filed an application being CMP No. 12713 of 2023, praying therein inter alia for the following reliefs:-
"(a) Allow the present application and may further be pleased to recall its order dated 30 th August, 2022, i.e. Annexure R-1.
(b) Restore the petition to its original position and restore status quo ante 30th August, 2022
(c) Afford the respondent No. 5/applicant to file a detailed reply tot he petition alongwith supporting documents and further to highlight therein the wrongful acts indulged in by various individuals including the three persons mentioned in the copy of the application, to enable this Hon'ble Court to initiate appropriate proceedings against them and to bring them to book in accordance with law.
(d) Allow any other relief deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in favour of the respondent No. 5.Applicant and against the wrongdoers."
5. On 31.10.2022, learned counsel for the non- applicant/petitioner sought further time to file reply to this application and the matter was ordered to be listed on 16.11.2022 and it was made clear that in case the reply is not filed by the next date, then the non-applicant/petitioner would present himself personally before the Court. 4
2023:HHC:14803
6. However, when the case came up for consideration on 16.11.2022, neither reply was filed nor the deponent of the affidavit Smt. Monika Bharti, President, Gram Panchayat presented herself before the Court, constraining the Court to pass the following order:-
"CMP No. 12713 of 2022
On 31.10.2022, we had passed the following order:
"The learned counsel appearing for the non- applicant/ petitioner seeks further time to file reply to the present application. We accede to the request of the learned counsel for the non- applicant/ petitioner.
List this matter on 16.11.2022.
In the event, the reply is not filed by the next date, the non-applicant/petitioner shall remain present personally before this Court."
2. Despite the aforesaid order, neither the reply has been filed nor Smt. Monika Bharti, who has affirmed the CWPIL, is present in Court. Since the allegations made by respondent No. 5 are serious, Office to issue notice to the petitioner through Smt. Monika Bharti, returnable by four weeks. The notice shall indicate that in the event reply is not filed by her by the next date, she shall remain present personally before this Court on the next date.
3. List on 20.12.2022.
4. We make it clear that in the event the said Smt. Monika Bharti does not file reply and/or does not remain present before this Court on the next date, appropriate orders will be passed to secure her presence."
5
2023:HHC:14803
7. The petitioner i.e. Smt. Monika Bharti instead of filing the reply preferred an application for extension of time to file reply being CMP No. 17730 of 2022 and the same was allowed and the matter was adjourned to 02.01.2023 with the direction that in case if reply is not filed, then the applicant/petitioner shall personally remain present before the Court.
8. The background in which the instant application i.e. CMP No. 12713 of 2022 was filed, has been duly culled and set out in the order dated 17.08.2023, which reads as under:-
"CMP no. 12713 of 2022 This application is filed for recall of the order dt. 30.08.2022 passed by this Court permitting withdrawal of CWPIL no. 56 of 2022 on the request made by the learned Counsel for Smt. Monika Bharti who has purportedly filed the said PIL on behalf of the Gram Panchayat Old Manali as its President/Pradhan.
2. It is alleged in this application by the applicant who was impleaded as 5 th respondent in the PIL on that false averments and allegations were levelled against him, and this Court was induced to issue notice to the applicant in CMP no.12713 of 2022 i.e. respondent no. 5 in the PIL; that the applicant then made inquiries in the Panchayat office of Old Manali since he was also a Member of the said Gram Panchayat and, came to know that neither there was any resolution passed by the said Gram Panchayat to file said PIL nor there was any resolution passed authorizing Smt. Monika Bharti, the President of the Gram Panchayat to file the said PIL or to engage any Counsel.6
2023:HHC:14803
3. It is alleged that the said PIL was filed at the behest and instance of three individuals by name Shri N.S. Verma, currently posted as Tehsildar, IRSA, Stamp Cell, Civil Secretariat, Shimla, Shri Gautam Nath, former vice President, Municipal Committee Manali and Shri Roop Chand, former President Municipal Committee, Manali.
4. It is alleged that the filing of the very PIL is to settle personal scores of these individuals and Smt. Monika Bharti with the applicant.
5. It is further contended that the applicant intended to seriously contest the said PIL, but thereafter the said PIL came to be withdrawn on 30.08.2022 without apprising the Court of the fact that the writ petition which was being withdrawn, was in fact a PIL.
6. The applicant therefore seeks restoration of the PIL in order to bring to notice of the Court the fact that false grounds were raised therein for settling personal scores with the applicant.
7. After this application was filed, Smt. Monika Bharti was directed to file a reply by this Court on 12.09.2022 and then the matter was adjourned to 27.09.2022 when it was further adjourned to 31.10.2022 and thereafter to 16.11.2022 and time was granted to file reply to her again on 16.11.2022 and again on 20.12.2022. Thereupon she filed a reply to this application on 26.12.2022, to which a rejoinder has also been filed.
8. In the reply filed by Smt. Monika Bharti, it is alleged that she did not file the said PIL, and she did not instruct anybody to file the same, nor did she sign any document. She also denied that she had any direct or indirect involvement in filing of the PIL. She stated that she has no serious objection for restoration of the PIL to its original position.7
2023:HHC:14803
9. Having regard to the stand taken by the respective parties, prima-facie the circumstances surrounding the filing of the CWPIL and its withdrawal are required to be examined. Therefore without expressing any opinion, at this stage, we allow this application and restore the CWPIL to the file of this Court. The application is accordingly disposed of.CWPIL No. 56 of 2022
10. Respondent No. 5 is permitted to file a reply to the CWPIL by the next date.
11. List on 06.09.2023."
9. When the case came up for consideration on 06.09.2023, Mr. V. S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate, on instructions, submitted that though his presence on previous date had been marked for the petitioner, however, he was never engaged by the petitioner Gram Panchayat Old Manali to appear in the Court but had been engaged by Smt. Monika Bharti in her individual capacity to contest this application only and he had not been engaged either by Smt. Monika Bharti or Gram Panchayat Old Manali in the main petition. In view of the submissions made by Mr. V. S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate, respondent No. 2 i.e Deputy Commissioner, Kullu was directed to inform Gram Panchayat through Pradhan as well as Secretary about the next date of hearing and also the petitioner Smt. Monika Bharti in her individual capacity as well as in the capacity of Pradhan to appear in the Court on the next date of hearing which was fixed as 20.09.2023. 8
2023:HHC:14803
10. On 20.09.2023, the Court passed the following order:-
"Having regard to the serious allegations leveled by 5 th respondent, Smt. Monika Bharti, W/o Sh. Om Prakash, R/o Village and Post Office Old Manali, District Kullu, H.P. is impleaded as a party respondent in this CWPIL. Issue notice to newly impleaded respondent Smt. Monika Bharti. Smt. Monika Bharti is present in Court and accepts service of notice. Reply be filed by the next date of hearing.
Likewise, Sh. Narain Singh Verma, Tehsildar IRSA, Stamp Cell, H.P. Secretariat, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh- 171002, Sh. Gautam Nath S/o Khub Ram, R/o Old Manali Village, Hotel Holiday Home, Circuit House Road, Manali-175131 and Sh. Roop Chand, S/o Uday Ram, R/o Mayflower Hotel, Circuit House Road, Manali, 175131 are also suo moto impleaded as party respondents in this CWPIL in view of serious allegations leveled against them by 5th respondent. Court notice be issued to the above impleaded respondents returnable for 06.11.2023."
11. The background in which this application has been filed, has already been set out in the order dated 17.08.2023 and, therefore, we need not reiterate the same and would straightway proceed to consider the reply of Smt. Monika Bharti, who is now impleaded as respondent No. 7 and in her reply to this application (wrongly mentioned as reply to the writ petition) has averred that the purview of the filing of the present writ petition is beyond her knowledge and that she did not directly/indirectly levy any allegation against any person 9 2023:HHC:14803 thereto and devise this writ petition as a weapon of vendetta against any such person. She has further averred that she acquired knowledge regarding the filing of the writ petition at her instance (through Gram Panchayat Manali), when she received the summons pertaining to her appearance in this application in the last week of December, 2022.
12. It is specifically averred that though the writ petition demonstrates the fact that it has been filed at the behest of Smt. Monika Bharti i.e. Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, however, she has specifically denied the filing of the same and has further stated that she has neither advanced directions to file the same her own instance or imparted instructions pertaining to the subject matter. It has also been averred that upon realising the fact that the present respondent has been impersonated as petitioner in CWPIL No. 56 of 2022 i.e. Smt. Monka Bharti alongwith other residents of Gram Panchayat Manali, she immediately informed the local police and demanded registration of FIR in the said subject matter. The police have made a GD Entry vide Annexure R-7 of the said incident at the Police Station Manali. The said situation has understandably caused significant confusion and distress in the mind of the respondent-Monika Bharti. Lastly, it has been reiterated that the instant writ petition and affidavit of the same does not bear the signature of the replying 10 2023:HHC:14803 respondent signature and the same has also not been verified by her.
13. The GD Entry reads as under:-
"General Diary Details State: Himachal Pradesh PS: Manali District: Kullu a) G.D. No.: 043
b) G.D. Date: 12/10/2022 07:51:46 PM
c) G.D. Type: Others
d) Name of Writer and Rank:PC/Tek Singh
e) Entry (for Officer): SI/Balbir Singh? 16657?
f) G.D. Subject:
g) G.D. Brief:
It is recorded that the Pradhan of Gram panchayat Manali. Monica Bharti along with rest of th members of Panchayat has reached the police station and has presented a complaint letter to the police the description of which is as follows: Office Gram Panchayat Manali Development Block Nagar Manali Post Office Manali Tehsil Manali District Kullu Chairperson Smt. Monica Bhat Presence 8/9 Proposal No. 1 Dated 12/10/202 Subject Regarding not filing of petition in Honorable High Court. A resolution was passed unanimously in the meeting that under Gram Panchaya Manali case No. CWPIL/56/2022, which is a petition filed in name of Panchayat Old Manali ve State which is pending adjudication Before hon'ble High Court, about which Gram Panchaya received information on 25/08/2022 Gram Panchayat Manali received the information in this regard and it was discussed in detail and decided that the above mentioned case No. CWPIL 56/2022 is not filed by the Gram panchayat and neither there is anything related to the said subject matter recorded in the proceedings of Gram Panchayat Manali. Therefore, no case has been filed in the High Court by Gram Panchayat Manali/Pradhan in case number CWPIL/56/2022. Therefore. the Gram Panchayat, through a resolution, requests the Honorable Police Station Incharge. Manali. that the person who has filed the said case in the name of Gram Panchayat Manali, in the Honorable High Court, Shimla, should be investigated and appropriate action should be taken against the culprit. The resolution is passed. List 1 Honorable Police Station Incharge. Sir. Manali District Kullu for further action. 2. In the service of Honorable Assistant Commissioner 11 2023:HHC:14803 (Vice) and Block Development Officer, Sir, Vikas Block Nagar, it is certified that the action is as per the original copy of the proposal. The gist of the complaint letter was written word by word and from the gist of the above complaint letter It is found that neither the Gram Panchayat Pradhan personally and nor the Panchayat has made any such complaint in the High Court. It is necessary to scrutinize the appropriate complaint letter which is given to ASI Giridhari Lal.
Whatever happens in future, the action will be implemented. Hence the report is filed.
Signature:
Name: Balbir Singh Rank: SI No.: 16657"
14. Respondent No. 7, in turn, has concluded the reply by praying for the following substantive reliefs:-
"a. That this Hon'ble Court may issue an inquiry in the said matter as to who has been impersonated the present replying respondent Monika Bharti and has hatched the conspiracy in order to defraud this Hon'ble Court.
b. to direct and order an enquiry by an appropriate authority as upon whose behest the present petition was filed with ulterior motive to harass the replying respondent and others.
c. to initiate an enquiry by appropriate authority against the advocate upon whose directive the present petition was filed at the first place."
15. Respondents No. 9 and 10 have filed a joint reply wherein it has been stated that the impleadment at the instance of respondent No. 5 is with malicious and ulterior motive to pressurize them to accept the illegal acts of omission and commission of respondent No. 5, for which replying respondent No. 9 in order to protect his property is 12 2023:HHC:14803 already litigating by way of various proceedings before the revenue authority and before the learned Civil Court at Manali and by impleading the replying respondent, respondent No. 5 intends to succeed in the hidden motive, which he cannot achieve otherwise in law. It is further averred that respondent No. 5 has concealed the material facts from this Court, especially regarding the proceedings going on between replying respondent No. 9 and respondent No. 5 before the statutory authorities as well as before the learned Civil Court at Manali. In fact by referring to such proceedings in his reply, the respondent No. 5 has twisted the facts to his suitability just to mislead this Hon'ble Court and have it believe that present CWPIL has been filed at the instance of replying respondent. Whereas the bare perusal of the documents filed by the replying respondents i.e. Annexures R-5/B, R-5/C, R-5/G and R-5/H would show that the said dispute pertains to boundaries of replying respondent No. 9 and respondent No. 5 and this fact has been concealed and twisted by respondent No. 5 and is evident from the perusal of the demarcation report dated 24.07.2021 and statements recorded at the relevant time including the statement of respondent No. 5 himself.
16. So far as respondent No. 10 is concerned, it has been submitted that respondent No. 5 has again misled this 13 2023:HHC:14803 Court by referring to Civil Court for encroachment and by specifically averring that "Gautam Nath encroachment removed/evicted", whereas the fact is that civil suit filed by respondent No. 5 being Case No. 60 of 1989 on 07.04.1989 was withdrawn by respondent No. 5 on 13.12.1989 at his own. A copy of the statement dated 13.12.1989 of respondent No. 5 and the orders passed by the Court in this case have been appended as Annexures R-9-10/B. According to respondent No. 10, this is one instance to show that respondent No. 5 has not approached this Court by filing the reply with clean hands and has twisted the facts to his suitability just to mislead the Court.
17. Lastly, it has been averred that the replying respondents were not aware of filing of the instant CWPIL and are not connected in any manner whatsoever in filing the CWPIL nor have met the counsel who filed the present CWPIL. It is averred that as regards respondent No. 9, he came to know about the pendency of this petition from the official website of this Court and thereafter came to know about the Advocate and his telephone number and on account of anxiety had called the Advocate once or twice in the year 2022 to know the status of the case only that too for the reasons that replying respondent No. 9 in order to protect his private property has instituted a civil suit for permanent, prohibitory 14 2023:HHC:14803 and mandatory injunction against respondent No. 5 before the learned Civil Court at Manali wherein vide order dated 27.11.2021, respondent No. 5 and other defendants in the said civil suit had been restrained from causing any interference in the land of respondent No. 9 comprised in Khasra No. 602, but respondent No. 5 had intentionally and deliberately named the replying respondent before this Court whereas replying respondent has played no role in filing of the writ petition.
18. Respondent No. 8 - Tehsildar, who has filed separate reply has stated that he had remained Tehsildar, Manali w.e.f. 10.03.2019 to 01.02.2022 (2 years 11 months) with additional charge of Executive Officer, M.C., Manali and during this time had dealt with various revenue cases pertaining to local residents including the petitioner as well as respondent No. 9 etc. He has specifically denied all the allegations levelled by respondent No. 5 to be baseless, malafide, false, defamatory reckless and averred that he reserves his right to take appropriate action under law against respondent No. 5 for the allegations made in the application, which have been made to settle his personal and malicious goal etc. through these proceedings. It is averred that replying respondent has unnecessarily been dragged into the present lis by respondent No. 5, who knowingly and intentionally has 15 2023:HHC:14803 concealed the material facts. Being Tehsildar AC Ist Grade, the replying respondent cannot be dragged into litigation in a manner like the present one by respondent No. 5, who now having an after thought wants to punish the replying respondent for his having passed an order against him in his official capacity way back on 26.07.2021 as AC 1 st Grade. It is averred that on 20.01.2022, respondent No. 8 stood transferred to the H.P. Secretariat, Shimla and was relieved on 01.02.2022 in order to join in the Secretariat and is continuing till date. After the said date he has never visited Manali again till date.
19. Respondent No. 5 has filed rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 8 wherein the allegations made in the application have been reiterated and re-affirmed. In addition thereto, it has been informed that respondent No. 8 did not perform his duties as per law and as far as the revenue matters of respondents No. 5, 7, 9 and 10 were concerned, more especially, the application for demarcation of respondent No. 9 wherein his order in this matter was set aside in appeal. Subsequently, respondent No. 5 discovered that the replying respondent No. 8 was well known to respondents No. 7, 9 and 10 and exercised his discretion in violation of the established and settled law. It was also discovered that there were several complaints against 16 2023:HHC:14803 respondent No. 8 as far as his tenure of the additional charge of Executive Officer M. C. Manali was concerned. It was denied that respondent No. 8 had performed his duties as per law. It is further averred that the evidence of complicity of replying respondent No. 8 is found in the cutting and over-writing on the objections submitted on 26.07.2021 (Annexure No. 5/2) and it has been prayed that independent high level court monitored time bound inquiry be conducted in this matter.
20. In rejoinder to the reply of respondents No. 9 and 10, the submissions made in the corresponding paras of the application have been reiterated and re-affirmed and it has been submitted that the matter before this Court raised two serious frauds that has been perpetuated by Smt. Monika Bharti acting at the behest and instance of respondents No. 8 to 10. The fact of the fraud is further illustrated by the order of this Court wherein the petitioner was represented on several hearings post the re-institution of the CWPIL by Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate, who had filed CWPIL. Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate, had represented the petitioner and sought several adjournments on her behalf and placed on record Medical Certificate in support of the adjournment. Further, even respondent No. 7 prayed for an independent high level time bound court monitored inquiry to expose this fraud by alleged impostor, who had allegedly impersonated her in filing and 17 2023:HHC:14803 instituting this writ petition through Advocate Mr. Mohan Sharma.
21. On 06.05.2024, respondent No. 5 filed CMP No. 10677 of 2024, wherein he prayed for following reliefs:-
a) Direct and order a time bound enquiry and probe by a Senior Police Official of the minimum rank of a Inspector General of Police, a Court monitored enquiry into the matter of filing and withdrawal of the present PIL, the role of Smt. Monika Bharti, Sh. Roop chand, Shg. Gautam, the petition and who represented Monika Bharti in the present proceedings. The Investigating Officer, be specifically directed to investigate the matter by tracing the call records, messages, Whatsapp messages, for the period 01.04.2021 to date of the phone Nos. of Smt. Monika Bharti (70189-14365) and (98822-18518), Sh. Roop Chand (98160-23004).
Sh. Gautam Nath (98161-55444), Sh. N. S. Verma (94184-56036) and (98161-55444) and that of Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate (94590-37388) and (98166- 37388).
22. However, this application is still pending adjudication and notices are yet to be issued in this application
23. When the case came up for consideration on 23.10.2024, this Court issued notice to Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner as he has been repeatedly avoiding appearance before this Court and issued separate notice to the Oath Commissioner Ms. Manjula Kumari, 18 2023:HHC:14803 Advocate, to appear before this Court alongwith record pertaining to 15.06.2022.
24. On 04.11.2024, Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Manjula Kumari, Advocate (Oath Commissioner) put in appearance before the Court. On a pointed query by the Court, Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate stated that the instant petition had been filed by him on the instructions of one Smt. Monika Bharti and his statement was taken on record. Thereafter both Mr. Mohan Sharma and Ms. Manjula Kumari, Advocates, were granted one week's time to file their respective reply(ies).
25. In compliance to the order Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate, has filed affidavit and it is apt to reproduce the same in its entirety, which reads as under:-
"Affidavit in compliance to the order dated 04.11.2024 by Mohan Sharma Advocate s/o Sh. Bodh Raj, Chamber No 442, age about 43 year.
May It Please Your Lordships:
1. That the above titled petition was filed before this Hon'ble Court which was withdrawn on 30.08.2022 on telephonic instructions of petitioner.
2. That thereafter CMP No.12713 of 2022 was field by the respondent No.5 which was allowed on 17.08.2023.
3. That before filing the aforesaid petition, a person visited my chamber who proposed himself to be a relative of petitioner Monika Bharti and handed over some documents pertains to the above titled case.19
2023:HHC:14803
4. That I advised him to ask the petitioner to come to my chamber on 28./05/22 as I assured him to prepare the case by that date.
5. That on dated 15/06/22, a lady accompanied by a person searching for me outside the court and qua that I was informed by somebody in the court, then I went outside the court and some persons were sitting over there on the bench.
6. That thereafter I asked from everybody who is searching for me, then a lady and person came to me and on asking her, she introduced herself to me as Monika Bharti and introduced a person as her husband. On that, I asked them to wait for sometimes, thereafter, handed over case file to her for heading after sometime it was returned signed to me. It was the Corona time and everybody was bound to follow the instructions/direction issued by the Government of India such as bearing the masks and to keep the distance from each other. As such, the advocates were facing the problem to interact with the client at length.
7. That it was only the conversation, thereafter I received the phone calls from Monika Bharti before 30.08.2022, the exact date is not remembered, on whose instructions, I withdrew the above titled matter. Verified at Shimla on 11th day of December, 2024.
Deponent"
26. Likewise, Oath Commissioner Manjula Kumari also filed affidavit and it shall be apt to reproduce the affidavit in its entirety, which reads as under:-
"AFFIDAVIT IN TERMS OF ORDER DATED 04.11.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN THE ABOVE- MENTIONED PETITION.20
2023:HHC:14803 Manjula Kumari D/o Sh. Naresh Kumar R/o Village Dhyan, PO Maseram, Tehsil Sarkaghat Distt Mandi, H.P. aged about 30 years Occupation Self Employed, do hereby solemnly declare and affirm on oath as under:-
1. That in terms of order dated 04.11.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court whereby the Hon'ble Court has ordered to file affidavit with respect to attestation of the above-mentioned petition.
2. That it is relevant to mention here that on 15.06.2022, Advocate Mohan Sharma along with one lady approached me for the attestation of the above- mentioned petition. That on the very same day there was huge rush around me and Advocate Mohan Sharma asked me that he will take the signature of the petitioner on the petition. That thereafter he along with the same lady came to me and I got attested the petition which was identified by the Adv Mohan Sharma.
3. That on 15.06.2022 my register was not with me as same was submitted by me before the appropriate authorities for inspection of the register which can be verified from the stamp of the Assistant Registrar, H.P. High Court which has shown the date 14.06.2022. That it is further important to mention here that I was not aware about the whereabouts of the lady which came along with Advocate Mohan Sharma as Advocate Mohan Sharma knows the lady very well. Copy of relevant page of the oath commissioner register is hereby annexed as Annexure A-1.
Deponent.
Verification I, the deponent named hereinabove, do hereby solemnly affirm and state that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my 21 2023:HHC:14803 knowledge and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Verified at Shimla on this 04th day of December, 2024, Deponent"
27. Arguments in this case were heard on 12.12.2024 and a specific statement was made by Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate, that this writ petition was withdrawn on 30.08.2022 on telephonic instructions imparted to him by Smt. Monika Bharti on telephone No. 70189-14365.
28. It is more than settled that court proceedings are sacrosanct and should not be polluted by unscrupulous litigants. The litigant has to approach the Court with clean hand, clean mind and clean heart and clean object. After all, Court proceedings are not a game of chess. At no cost the stream of justice be permitted to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants. The court has to be careful that its jurisdiction is not abused by a person or body of person to farther his personal cause or to satisfy his personal grudge or grudges by way of proxy litigation and a clear and loud message needs to be sent to to the public at large.
29. Any conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or due course of judicial proceedings amounts to commission of criminal contempt. The swearing on false affidavit in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of 22 2023:HHC:14803 the judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice.
30. The filing of false affidavit or proceedings through proxy or pseudonymously in any court of law expose the intention of the concerned party in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted, nor the majesty of law can be made a mockery by such acts or conducts on the part of the parties to the litigation. Any one who makes an attempt to impede, undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to such tactics, commits criminal contempt of the Court and renders himself/herself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act.
31. Filing of false affidavit or pseudonymous affidavit or making false statement on oath in a Court aims at striking a blow at the role of law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institution because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the foundation of justice is allowed to be poisoned by any one resorting to filing of a false affidavit or pseudonymous affidavit or giving false statement and fabricating the false evidence in a Court of law.
23
2023:HHC:14803
32. As observed above, the stream of justice have to be kept clean and pure and any one soiling its purity has to be dealt with sternly so that the message percolates loud and clear that no-one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the Court and interfere with due course of judicial proceedings and administration of justice.
33. Here the Court is confronted with the question as to who actually filed this writ petition. Was it at the behest of respondent No. 7 or at the behalf of some other respondent?
34. Is it a proxy litigation set-up by the respondents or some other person (persons), who is/are not before the Court?
35. Since each of the respondent is in a mode of denial, therefore, it has become essential for this Court to find out the truth after all this Court cannot be allowed to be taken for a ride by some unscrupulous litigant(s).
36. Accordingly, we direct the Deputy Superintendent of police, Manali to convert GD Entry No. 043, dated 12.10.2022, entered at Police Station, Manali, as an FIR and further investigate the matter without being influenced by the fact that on whose complaint or at whose behest such GD Entry came to be entered. The role of each of the respondents would be investigated and the Investigating Officer shall give a firm finding as to on whose behalf / at whose behest the instant petition had been filed and through whom and specific 24 2023:HHC:14803 findings be given as to whether this was on behalf of respondent No. 7 uninfluenced by the fact as to whether his signature tallied with the affidavit filed in support of this petition. Such inquiry be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any event by 31.03.2025. Part-A and Part-B of the original record are directed to be sealed forthwith by the Registrar General and thereafter are ordered to be handed over to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer shall also go into the question as to whether respondent No. 7 has been impersonated as alleged by her. The investigating officer shall specifically take into consider the statements made by Shri Mohan Sharma, Advocate, before this Court on 04.11.2024 and 12.12.2024, respectively.
37. However, before parting, we may observe that we have not at all delved into the merits of the case, and any observations made shall not be construed as an opinion as the same has been made solely for the purpose of adjudication of the instant application.
38. The application stands disposed of.
For compliance to come up on 01.04.2025.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Acting Chief Justice (Satyen Vaidya) 18.12.2024 Judge (sanjeev)