'Shocked Beyond Words As To How Such Direction Could Be Passed': MP High Court Imposes Rs.1 Lakh Cost On Petitioner For Creating 'False Documents' & Obtaining 'False Order'

Setting aside the order passed by its single bench, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently expressed its shock over the conduct of the Petitioner for getting the matter listed before the Writ Court. The Court was also dismayed by the manner in which the single bench had passed the order, concluding that it was done to pre-empt the State from taking any action against the Petitioner for the illegal acts committed by him. The division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice P.K. Kaurav went on to impose a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the Petitioner, observing that he had 'misused the rights granted to him, created false documents and obtained a false order.' The facts of the case were that the Writ Court, vide the impugned order, had directed the State to record the names of the Respondent/Petitioner and Legal Representatives of one Late Badri Prasad as owners of properties spread across 142 acres. The single bench had directed the same to implemented as per the order passed by the Board of Revenue, which was brought on record by the Petitioner. The State argued that the Writ Court had passed the impugned order in undue and unexplained haste. They informed the Court that the Petition was filed during summer vacation without any interim relief and that it was listed immediately on the very next working day after getting filed. Furthermore, they added, the Writ Court had disposed of the matter on first hearing itself. The State contended that no notices were issued so as to provide them an opportunity to make a case against the Petitioner. The State also argued that there was suppression of material by the Petitioner, which could not be brought up before the Writ Court. It was, therefore, prayed before the Court to set aside the impugned order. Examining the submissions of the parties and documents on record, the Court observed that neither was there any urgency to hear the matter nor was there any reason for the single bench to dispose of the matter on the first hearing itself- It is very unfortunate that gross injustice has happened. We fail to understand as to how such proceedings could prevail in a court of law. Firstly, is the fact that the petition was filed on 12.6.2018. It was listed on the very next working day namely on 14.6.2018. It was a summer vacation. It is only matters of absolute urgency that could be filed during summer vacation. There is not even an interim order sought for in the petition. However, an application for urgent hearing is filed. The petition is disposed off without even notice to the government. It is needless to state that on this ground itself not only the writ appeal should be allowed, but even the writ petition should be dismissed for such conduct of the petitioner. It is obvious that the intention of the petitioner is otherwise. When there is no urgency, the question of filing such a petition and moving it on the ground of an application for urgent hearing cannot be encouraged by this Court.Secondly, assuming that there was an urgency, there was no necessity, nor do we find any reason as to why the writ petition should have been disposed off by a final order. The only conclusion that can be drawn is to pre-empt the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner for such illegal acts committed by him. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the petitioner has made out that an appropriate interim relief could have been granted subject to hearing the State, even that has not been done. Obviously, it could not be done because there was no prayer for interim relief at all. Therefore, the entire manner in which the proceedings have been conducted, in our considered view, does not entail any order in favour of the petitioner.Perusing the relief prayed by the Petitioner in his petition before the single bench, the Court brought its attention to the first prayer, which was to quash a document related to the suit property. The Court noted that it was not backed by any authentication and would've been created by the Petitioner for 'selfish needs'- Annexure-P/1 does not contain any title nor a signature nor a seal nor any authentication by any State authority. It would appear that it is a document created by the petitioner for his own selfish needs. The writ petition should have been dismissed on this ground itself. But it is only in a conceited manner that by preparing such a document, such a writ petition has been filed. Therefore, the question of granting prayer No.1 does not and cannot arise for consideration at all.The Court further noted that even the second prayer was not sustainable as the same was meaningless- The second prayer is to hold that the order dated 13.1.1983 has attained finality. We have considered the said order. It is an order passed by the Board of Revenue. It is an order remanding the matter to the Additional Settlement Commissioner for a fresh...

'Shocked Beyond Words As To How Such Direction Could Be Passed': MP High Court Imposes Rs.1 Lakh Cost On Petitioner For Creating 'False Documents' & Obtaining 'False Order'

Zeeshan Thomas

Tags