W.P.No. 5854 / 2010
(Bhomke ..v. ..Collector, Harda & two others)
27-08-2010
Heard Shri P.S.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question
of admission and interim relief.
The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that a sum of Rs.4,81,744/-
which had been received from the auction of trees that had been cut from the
petitioner's land was not being paid to the petitioner though his trees have
been auctioned.
The respondents have filed a return and have stated that the entire
petition filed by the petitioner was a bundle of lies inasmuch as the petitioner
participated during auction proceedings and in his presence the entire amount
received from the proceeds of the auction were deposited in the joint account
of the petitioner and the Collector, Harda, in the District Coopertive Central
Bank, Harda, on 12-1-2009. It is further stated that the petitioner moved an
application for release of some amount before the Collector, Harda and after
due consideration and personally hearing the petitioner on 22-2-2010 the
Collector released a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) to the petitioner
which was received by him on 18-3-2010. The Collector, Harda has further
brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has not moved any further
application for release of any amount to the petitioner as envisaged by Rule
12(2) of the Lok Vaniki Yojna, 2002 framed under the provisions of Lok Vaniki
Adhiniyam, 2002, in spite of which the Collector had issued orders to District
Coopertive Central Bank, Harda to release a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five
thousand) per month to the petitioner as per the provisions of Rule 12(i) of the
Rules of 2000.
As all the aforesaid facts were within the knowledge of the petitioner
before filing of the present petition in spite of which they were suppressed by
the petitioner while filing the present petition, this Court by order dated
12-7-2010 directed personal presence of the petitioner and also asked the
petitioner to submit an explanation as to why all the aforesaid facts were
suppressed in the petition. As the petitioner failed to comply with the order
passed by this Court, a bailable warrant was issued against him by order dated
2-8-2010 pursuant to which the petitioner is now present in Court.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has
filed an affidavit tendering apology and stating that the petitioner had not
mentioned the aforementioned facts in the petition only on account of the fact
that he is a Tribal and an illiterate person and is not a very young man while at
the same time the petitioner has admitted all the facts stated by the respondent
regarding the auction proceedings, deposit of the amount received from the
auction of trees, in the bank, release of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one
lac) as well as release of a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per
month to the petitioner.
In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the
explanation submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner on his behalf is
not satisfactory and does not explain or give any cogent reason for
suppressing material facts by filing the present petition. In view of the admitted
facts, the act of the petitioner cannot be condoned as it amounts to perjury.
The petitioner has also made a prayer to withdraw the petition. In the
circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the petition, however, in
view of the act of suppression and perjury committed by the petitioner and the
abuse of the process of law committed by him, he is directed to pay a cost of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) which shall be deposited by the petitioner
before the Registry of this Court.
With the aforesaid observations and directions the petition filed by the
petitioner stands disposed of as withdrawn.
C.C. as per rules.
( R.S.Jha )
mct Judge