BABUBHAI MERVANBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset it is required to be noted that present case is an eye opener and an example to what extent a litigant can go and suppress the material fact and mislead the Court.

(2.) By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Babubhai Mervanbhai Patel has prayed for an appropriate order quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 24.09.2009 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN/BS/10/1998.

(3.) This petition was placed before this Court for admission hearing and at the time of hearing of the present petition on 09.08.2010, this Court pointed out that identical or similar petition came to be considered by this Court and this Court had earlier dismissed the same and therefore, after hearing the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, this Court passed the order to dismiss the petition. After the order was pronounced and on the very next day, this Court was dictating the order, in the meantime, this Court inquired with respect to the earlier similar petition being disposed by this Court and this Court get the order passed by this Court dated 16.11.2009 in Special Civil Application No.13154/2009. However, surprisingly and very shockingly on going through the order passed by this Court in aforesaid Special Civil Application No.13154/2009, it came to the notice of this Court that the aforesaid Special Civil Application No.13154/2009 which came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.11.2009 was filed by the very petitioner challenging the very judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 24.09.2009 in TEN/BS/10/1998 and without disclosing the same and present petition has been filed as if the present petition is the fresh petition and filed for the first time challenging the judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 24.09.2009 in Revision Application No.TEN/BS/10/1998. Therefore, this Court passed an order to recall the order dated 09.08.2010 dismissing the present petition and directed to notify the same for further hearing on 13.08.2010. On 13.08.2010 considering the fact that the very petitioner had earlier filed a Special Civil Application No.13154/2009 challenging the very impugned judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 24.09.2009 passed in Revision Application No.10/1998 which came to be dismissed by this Court on merits vide judgment and order dated 16.11.2009 and apart from the fact that there is no whisper about filing of the earlier petition and dismissal of the same by this Court, on affidavit, the petitioner has made incorrect statement that petitioner has not filed any other petition and/or proceedings with respect to the subject matter and therefore, this Court directed the Registry to issue notice upon the petitioner making it returnable on 18.08.2010 and the petitioner was directed to show cause why appropriate proceedings for perjury and making false statement on affidavit shall not be initiated against him. In response to the notice issued by this Court and having served with the same, Shri M.B. Gandhi, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner Babubhai Mervanbhai Patel and he straightway tendered unconditional apology of the petitioner and the affidavit dated 18.08.2010 by submitting that he was not aware of the earlier proceedings and one Shri Purohit, learned advocate was given papers who obtained signatures on some papers, however, he was not responding to the same and therefore, he again applied for the certified copy from the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and thereafter he engaged Shri Nayan Parekh, learned advocate who preferred present Special Civil Application No.9161/2010 submitting that he is an illiterate villager, it was requested to pardon him and to accept unconditional apology and not to initiate any proceedings against him. When this petition was heard on 18.08.2010, fortunately, Shri S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate who earlier appeared on behalf of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.13154/2009, was also present in the Court and he made a statement in presence of the petitioner that in fact very petitioner had come to his office earlier and that he affirmed the earlier petition and therefore, to say that he was not aware of the earlier proceedings, is factually incorrect. He has also further stated at the Bar that not only that, even after the dismissal of the aforesaid Special Civil Application No.13154/2009, the petitioner came to his office and he was specifically told and informed that his petition is dismissed and at the most an Appeal can be preferred, therefore, the say of the petitioner that he was not aware about the dismissal of the petition is also incorrect and false. The aforesaid was told by Shri Majmudar, learned advocate who appeared for the petitioner in earlier petition in presence of the petitioner in gujarati and petitioner could not deny the aforesaid, however and on the contrary, he had admitted that he was told that your petition has failed. However, still, Shri Gandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner requested to accept the unconditional apology and drop the proceedings on imposition of reasonable cost. Considering the above, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- and only thereafter, petitioner's request for accepting unconditional apology can be considered and Shri Gandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, under the instructions from the petitioner, agreed to deposit the same. Accordingly, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- before his case for accepting unconditional apology can be considered. Thereafter, when the request of the petitioner to accept unconditional apology again came to be considered by this Court on 23.08.2010, again it was found by this Court that even while tendering unconditional apology by filing affidavit dated 18.08.2010, petitioner has made incorrect and false statement on oath to the effect that he was not aware of the filing of the earlier petition and/or that his advocate was not giving proper information and that he was not aware of dismissal of the earlier petition. As stated herein above, the aforesaid was found to be incorrect and the petitioner could not deny the same in presence of Shri S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner who filed earlier petition. Therefore, this Court passed the following order on 23.08.2010.