Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

( 18 ) wp 14435.21

29. Needless to say that the Petitioner countered reply to the Respondents by filing Rejoinder and contended that in affidavit in reply, the Respondent Authorities have made several incorrect statements, hence, prayed for taking stringent action against the officers of the Respondents - Authorities. Per contra, serious allegations are being made by the NHAI that the Petitioners in W.P. No. 8674 of 2022 and W.P. No.14435 of 2021 have resorted to creation of documents and forgery. Therefore, on 07.02.2024, this Court passed an order, which reads as under:

"1. Having considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for some time, we are quite sure that there are several disputed issues in the cause brought before us in these 2 Petitions. Since there are serious allegations by the NHAI that the Petitioners have resorted to creation of documents and forgery, we called upon the learned Advocate for the Petitioners i.e. one Petitioner in the first Petition namely Manish Omprakash Agrawal, who is Petitioner No.2 in the second Petition alongwith Kalpesh Rameshchandra Agrawal, to state as to whether they are willing to file their independent affidavits in these Petitions declaring that if it is eventually noticed either in these proceedings or any other proceedings concerning the Writ land, that any of these Petitioners have indulged in fabrication of records or forgery or any dishonest act, they would deposit Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lakhs) each, in this Court as costs and would be willing to face criminal prosecution.

( 20 ) wp 14435.21

31. No doubt, while passing order dated 7th February, 2024, this Court observed about leveling serious allegations by the Respondent No. 2 N.H.A.I., about creation of documents and forgery. Therefore, this Court called upon to furnish affidavit declaring that if it is eventually noticed either in these proceedings or any other proceedings concerning the writ land, that, any of these petitioners have found to be indulged in fabrication of record or forgery or any dishonest act, they would deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs) toward cost and that would be willing to face criminal prosecution. Therefore, the Petitioner was called upon to file second affidavit that if he would be liable for the same consequences. In response to said order dated 07.02.2024, the Petitioner filed affidavit dated 15.02.2024 and voluntarily deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- with the Registry of this Court through Demand Draft No. 951505 dated 13th February, 2024. This Court had not directed that the amount be deposited in advance. Needless to say that though the Petitioner and the Officer of Respondent No. 2 alleged each other about creation of documents and forgery, however, this Court cannot deal with disputed issues and conclude as to which of the documents are forged and fabricated. This could be possible in a Civil Suit with the aid of oral and documentary evidence and upon producing the original Revenue record. Therefore, issue pertaining to manufacturing of documents and forgery of documents is kept open, which can be decided by the Competent Court of law, if the parties desires to avail of the remedy permissible ( 21 ) wp 14435.21 in law. Therefore, amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- deposited by the Petitioner with the Registry of this Court needs to be refunded with accrued interest, if any.