Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranjeet Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MP 853
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.23664/2019
Ranjeet Singh Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. and another
Gwalior, Dated :10/01/2020
Shri Shyam Sharma, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri R.K. Upadhyay, Government Advocate for State.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed against the order dated 25/10/2019 passed by the Chief
Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Ashok Nagar, by which the
petitioner has been transferred from Gram Panchayat Dangorafut,
Ashoknagar to Gram Panchayat Bhariyakhedi, Chanderi.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier by order dated
15/7/2019 the petitioner was transferred from Dangorafut to Manheti
and similarly one Surendra Yadav was transferred from Manheti to
Dangorafut. The petitioner in compliance of the order dated
15/7/2019 submitted his joining on 21/7/2019, Annexure P/4.
However, Surendra Yadav challenged his transfer order by filing writ
petition No.15330/2019, which was decided by the coordinate Bench
of this Court by order dated 6/8/2019 with a direction to the
respondents to decide the representation made by Surendra Yadav. It
is submitted that accordingly, the transfer order dated 15/7/2019 by which the petitioner was transferred to Manheti and Surendra Yadav was transferred from Manheti to Dangorafut was cancelled and the petitioner as well as Surendra Yadav were posted at their original Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 17/01/2020 16:02:28 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.23664/2019 Ranjeet Singh Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. and another post of posting. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner resubmitted his joining at Janpad Panchayat Dangorafut on 24/8/2019. It is submitted that now by the impugned order dated 25/10/2019 the petitioner has been transferred from Dangorafut, Ashoknagar to Bhariyakhedi, Chanderi. It is submitted that it is merely mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner is being transferred on the order of the incharge Minister, District Ashoknagar. It is nowhere mentioned that the petitioner has been transferred in administrative exigency or on his own. Further, the transfer order dated 25/10/2019 amounts to frequent transfer because earlier the petitioner had carried out the transfer order dated 15/7/2019, but only because of cancellation of the said transfer order, he resubmitted his joining at Dangorafut. It is further submitted that the transfer of the petitioner on the orders of the incharge Minister is bad because the politicians have no say in the matter. Furthermore, the children of the petitioner are studying in Ashoknagar and the transfer of the petitioner would adversely affect their education.
3. The respondents have filed their return and a specific stand has been taken by them that the petitioner had never submitted his joining in compliance of the order dated 15/7/2019 and in fact the petitioner went on leave from 2/8/2019 to 20/8/2019 and even the salary of the petitioner for the month of July to October was tendered Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 17/01/2020 16:02:28 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.23664/2019 Ranjeet Singh Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. and another by Janpad Panchayat Ashoknagar and the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has deliberately and intentionally concealed the actual facts.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. In order to challenge the order dated 25/10/2019 the petitioner had pleaded that in compliance of order dated 15/7/2019 he had submitted his joining in Gram Panchayat Manheti on 21/7/2019. Paragraph 5(v) of the writ petition reads as under:-
"5(v) That, in compliance of the above transfer order, the petitioner submitted his joining report in Gram Panchayat Manheti on 21-07-2019. Copy of joining report is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure P/4."
6. The copy of the so called joining in Gram Panchayat Manheti dated 21/7/2019 has also been annexed, however, it does not contain any receipt or acknowledgment. Although the respondents have filed their return on 9/12/2019, but in spite of the fact that a month has passed, the petitioner has not chosen to file any rejoinder controverting the contention of the respondents that the petitioner had never submitted his joining at Gram Panchayat Manheti. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the return read as under:-
"10. From the aforesaid events as mentioned in above para it is clear that the petitioner was on leave from 02.08.2019 to 20.08.2019 and never had actually joined his transferred place at Gram Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 17/01/2020 16:02:28 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.23664/2019 Ranjeet Singh Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. and another Panchayat Manheti, Janpad Panchayat Isagarh but remains on leave at his original place of posting ie. Gram Panchayat Dangorafut, Janpad Panchayat Ashok Nagar.
11. That it is also pertinent to submit here that even the salary of the petitioner for the month of July, August, September, October was tendered by the janpad panchayat Ashok Nagar. Copy of the statement of salary for the month of July, August, September, October are collectively marked and annexed as Annexure R/3 (Collectively)."
7. Further, the respondents have filed the application made by the petitioner for grant of leave, which was sanctioned by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Ashoknagar and the remark under clause 14 of the said application reads as under:-
"14- Order of the sanctioning authority Lohd`fr nsus okys vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k e-iz- vodk'k ys[kk fu;e 1977 ds fu;eksa ds izko/kku vuqlkj Jh jathr flag ;kno lfpo xzk-ia- MaxksjkQwV dk fnukad 2&8&2019 ls 20&8&2019 rd dqy 19 fnol dk vftZr vodk'k Lohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA buds vodk'k ys[ks esa 180 fnol dk LoRo gS 180 fnol esa ls 19 fnol de dj 'ks"k 161 fnol 'ks"k LoRo jgkA fn0 2&09&2019^^"
8. In this remark also the petitioner has been shown to be the Secretary of Gram Panchayat Dangorafut. It is undisputed fact that Gram Panchayat Dangorafut falls within Janpad Panchayat Ashoknagar, whereas Gram Panchayat Manheti falls within the Janpad Panchayat Ishagarh, District Ashoknagar, therefore, it is clear that the petitioner never submitted his joining in Gram Panchayat Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 17/01/2020 16:02:28 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.23664/2019 Ranjeet Singh Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. and another Manheti, District Ashoknagar and with an intention to create a false ground of frequent transfer not only the petitioner has filed the concocted and created joining report dated 21/7/2019, Annexure P/4, but has also made a specific pleading in the writ petition. This conduct of the petitioner is a clear attempt to mislead this Court and he had also succeeded in the same, as relying upon the pleadings as well as the documents filed by the petitioner, this Court by order dated 8/11/2019 had stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 25/10/2019. It is well settled principle of law that one who approaches the Court must come with clean hands. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not disputed the specific stand taken by the respondents to the effect that the petitioner had never submitted his joining in Gram Panchayat Manheti and in view of the fact that false pleading has been made and false and created document of joining has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure P/4, this Court shall later on consider the following question:-
"As to whether any cost be imposed on the petitioner and whether the contempt proceedings should be initiated against the petitioner or not?"
However, the further grounds which have been raised by the petitioner shall be considered first.
9. It is the next contention of the petitioner that since in the Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 17/01/2020 16:02:28 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.23664/2019 Ranjeet Singh Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. and another present order it is merely mentioned that the petitioner has been transferred on the orders of the incharge Minister, District Ashoknagar, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been transferred because of administrative exigency and further the impugned order dated 25/10/2019 is bad because the same has been passed under the orders of a politician.
10. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.
11. As per the transfer policy, under some circumstances concurrence of the incharge Minister is required. The petitioner has not challenged the transfer policy on the ground that the politician has no role to play in the service matter of the State employees. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150 has held as under:-
"8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned transfer order of the appellant from Muzaffarnagar to Mawana, District Meerut was made at the instance of an MLA. On the other hand, it has been stated in the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that the appellant has been transferred due to complaints against him. In our opinion, even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. After all, it is the duty of the representatives of the Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 17/01/2020 16:02:28 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.23664/2019 Ranjeet Singh Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. and another people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official the State government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard-and-fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an M.P. or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts & circumstances of an individual case. In the present case, we see no infirmity in the impugned transfer order."
12. Thus, even if a person has been transferred on the recommendation of a politician, then that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order because it is the duty of the representatives of the people to express the grievances of the people. The petitioner has not pointed out as to when he was posted for the first time in Gram Panchayat Dangorafut, District Ashoknagar. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner must have completed more than five years of his regular tenure.
13. So far as the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner that since it is not mentioned in the transfer order that the petitioner has been transferred in administrative exigency, therefore, it cannot be said that the transfer of the petitioner is in administrative exigency and since the petitioner had never requested for his transfer, therefore, his transfer order is bad are concerned, the same cannot be accepted. Since the transfer of the petitioner has not been passed on his own request, therefore, it has to be presumed that in the light of the orders issued by the incharge Minister, District Ashoknagar, the Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 17/01/2020 16:02:28 8 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.23664/2019 Ranjeet Singh Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. and another petitioner has been transferred in administrative exigency.
14. No other argument is advanced by the counsel for the petitioner.
15. The next question for consideration is that:-
"Whether this Court should initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner apart from imposing heavy cost for making false pleadings and false grounds as well as for filing concocted and created document or not?"
16. The Supreme Court in the case of S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar reported in (2004) 7 SCC 166 has held as under :
"13. As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case..........................."
The Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 has held as under :
"4. In Welcom Hotel v. State of A.P. [(1983) 4 SCC 575 ] the Court held that a party which has misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case.
5. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 17/01/2020 16:02:28 9 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.23664/2019 Ranjeet Singh Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. and another Karnataka [(1991) 3 SCC 261] the Court denied relief to the appellant who had concealed the fact that the award was not made by the Land Acquisition Officer within the time specified in Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act because of the stay order passed by the High Court. While dismissing the special leave petition, the Court observed: (SCC p. 263, para 2) "2. ... Curiously enough, there is no reference in the special leave petitions to any of the stay orders and we came to know about these orders only when the respondents appeared in response to the notice and filed their counter-affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have a direct bearing on the question raised and the non-disclosure of the same certainly amounts to suppression of material facts. On this ground alone, the special leave petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the special leave petitions."
6. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1] the Court held that where a preliminary decree was obtained by withholding an important document from the court, the party concerned deserves to be thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
7. In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI [(2007) 8 SCC 449] it was held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court is not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 17/01/2020 16:02:28 10 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.23664/2019 Ranjeet Singh Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. and another the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court referred to the judgment of Scrutton, L.J. in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 KB 486 (CA)], and observed: (Prestige Lights Ltd. case, SCC p. 462, para
35) In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.
8. In A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. [(2007) 4 SCC 221] the Court held that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on any party. It confers discretion on this Court to grant leave to appeal in appropriate cases. In other words, the Constitution has not made the Supreme Court a regular court of appeal or a court of error. This Court only intervenes where justice, equity and good conscience require such intervention.
9. In Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India [(2008) 2 SCC 326] the Court held that while exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the facts and circumstances of the case should be seen in their entirety to find out if there is miscarriage of justice. If the appellant has not come forward with clean hands, has not candidly disclosed all the facts that he is aware of and he intends to delay the proceedings, then the Court will non-suit him on the ground of contumacious conduct. Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 17/01/2020 16:02:28 11 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.23664/2019 Ranjeet Singh Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. and another
10. In K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [(2008) 12 SCC 481] the Court held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel]."
The Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society reported in (2013) 11 SCC 531 has held as under :
"Suppression of fact
42. While dealing with the conduct of the parties, we may also notice the submission of the learned counsel for Respondent 1 to the effect that the petitioners are guilty of suppression of a material fact from this Court, namely, the rejection on 2-5-2003 of the first application for extension of time filed by the trustees and the finality attached to it. These facts have not been clearly disclosed to this Court by the petitioners. It was submitted that in view of the suppression, special leave to appeal should not be granted to the petitioners.
43. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no material facts have been withheld from this Court. It was submitted that while the order dated 2-5-2003 was undoubtedly not filed, its existence was not material in view of subsequent developments that had taken place. We cannot agree.
44. It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is not Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 17/01/2020 16:02:28 12 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.23664/2019 Ranjeet Singh Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. and another material. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and leave the decision-making to the court. True, there is a mention of the order dated 2-5-2003 in the order dated 24-7-2006 passed by the JCC, but that is not enough disclosure. The petitioners have not clearly disclosed the facts and circumstances in which the order dated 2-5-2003 was passed or that it has attained finality.
45. We may only refer to two cases on this subject. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das stress was laid on litigants eschewing inaccurate, untrue or misleading statements, otherwise leave granted to an appellant may be revoked. It was observed as follows: (AIR p. 1560, para 9) "9. ... It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. That is why we have come to the conclusion that in the present case, special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked. Accordingly, special leave is revoked and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs of the respondent."
46. More recently, in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India the case law on the subject was discussed. It was held that if a litigant does not come to the court with clean hands, he is not entitled to be heard and indeed, such a person is not entitled to any relief from any judicial forum. It was said: (SCC p. 51, para 21) "21. The principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 17/01/2020 16:02:28 13 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.23664/2019 Ranjeet Singh Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. and another the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every court is not only entitled but is duty-bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case."
47. A mere reference to the order dated 2-5-2003, en passant, in the order dated 24-7-2006 does not serve the requirement of disclosure. It is not for the court to look into every word of the pleadings, documents and annexures to fish out a fact. It is for the litigant to come upfront and clean with all material facts and then, on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel, leave it to the court to determine whether or not a particular fact is relevant for arriving at a decision. Unfortunately, the petitioners have not done this and must suffer the consequence thereof."
The Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal v. Ugrasen, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 557 has held as under:
"48. The present appellants had also not disclosed that land allotted to them falls in commercial area. When a person approaches a court of equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, he should approach the court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective.
"Equally, the judicial process should never become an instrument of oppression or abuse or a means in the process of the court to subvert justice." Who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim "Jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem", means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 17/01/2020 16:02:28 14 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.23664/2019 Ranjeet Singh Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. and another by the loss or injury to another. (Vide Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand and Noorduddin v. Dr. K.L. Anand at SCC p. 249, para 9.)
49. Similarly, in Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra this Court observed as under: (SCC p. 140, para 10) "10. ... The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. ... the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. ... The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-à-vis the private interest while exercising ... any of their discretionary powers."
(emphasis added)
50. In Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. and Sabia Khan v. State of U.P. this Court held that filing a totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the court. Such a litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as a petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the process of the court. A litigant is bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts".
51. In Abdul Rahman v. Prasony Bai, S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. v. Commr. (Admn.) this Court held that whenever the court comes to the conclusion that the process of the court is being abused, the court would be justified in refusing to proceed further and refuse relief to the party. This rule has been evolved out of need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of the court by deceiving it."
17. Since the petitioner is a Panchayat Secretary, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that it may be harsh in case if he is prosecuted for committing contempt of Court, however, if a person, Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 17/01/2020 16:02:28 15 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.23664/2019 Ranjeet Singh Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. and another howsoever rich or poor may be, makes an attempt to mislead the Court by filing false, created and concocted document and makes a false pleading before the Court, then he cannot be allowed to go scot free by showing leniency to him.
18. The manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court by suppressing the material facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is required to be dealt with firmly. The interim order from this Court has been obtained by the petitioner by making a false claim that earlier he had already joined at the transferred place, therefore, the present transfer order is bad being frequent in nature, whereas in fact the petitioner had never carried out the earlier transfer order dated 15/7/2019. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that this petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost, so that the leniency of this court may not encourage the other persons/litigants to make an attempt to mislead the Court by filing a created, false and concocted documents, in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Messer Holdings Ltd. v. Shyam Madanmohan Ruia reported in (2016) 11 SCC 484, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"49. This case should also serve as proof of the abuse of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 17/01/2020 16:02:28 16 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.23664/2019 Ranjeet Singh Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. and another under Article 136 by the rich and powerful in the name of a "fight for justice" at each and every interlocutory step of a suit. Enormous amount of judicial time of this Court and two High Courts was spent on this litigation. Most of it is avoidable and could have been well spent on more deserving cases.
50. This Court in Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi observed at para 54: (SCC p. 268) "54. While imposing costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic as to what the defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. We have to also broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter-affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee, etc."
51. We therefore, deem it appropriate to impose exemplary costs quantified at Rs 25,00,000 (Rupees twenty-five lakhs only) to be paid by each of the three parties i.e. GGL, MGG and the Ruias. The said amount is to be paid to the National Legal Services Authority as compensation for the loss of judicial time of this country and the same may be utilised by the National Legal Services Authority to fund poor litigants to pursue their claims before this Court in deserving cases."
19. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the cost is liable to be imposed on the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand Only) to be deposited in the account of MP Legal Services Authority, Gwalior within a period of one month.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Arun* Judge
Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR
MISHRA
Date: 17/01/2020 16:02:28