RAM PHAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short issue raised in the instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is :

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 29.4.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2771 of 2008 (to be referred as 2nd petition). The learned Single Judge has non-suited the appellant-writ petitioner by sustaining a preliminary objection that the facts concerning the earlier litigation initiated by him by filing CWP No. 5922 of 2004 (1st petition) which was dismissed on 28.1.2005, were not disclosed and accordingly he has been held guilty of suppression of those facts. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the following para :- When the counsel for the petitioner is confronted with these facts, he pleads ignorance and says that he made an attempt to contact his client, but has not been able to establish contact. Prayer for adjournment was made which is declined. The reply was filed on 03.03.2008. The petitioner has filed replication also. The petitioner has answered to this preliminary objection but has chosen to remain silent on filing of previous writ petition; the petitioner cannot plead lack of instruction and should have by now obtained instructions in this regard. The counsel cannot be heard to say that he has not been able to contact petitioner. It was incumbent on the counsel to obtain instructions in this regard. It is thus, clear that there is an attempt on the part of the petitioner to misrepresent and mislead this court for the purpose of obtaining an order in his favour despite his same prayer having been declined earlier. This would be sole ground to decline relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner will pay sum of Rs. 20,000/-.

(3.) THE 2nd writ petition After the dismissal of the 1st writ petition filed by the appellant writ petitioner alongwith others, Birkha-respondent No. 3, filed an application before the Divisional Canal Officer Siwani (Water Division) Bhiwani for sanctioning of water course 'AB' from the land of the appellant-writ petitioner. The application filed by Birkha-respondent No. 3 was rejected on 11.1.2005. Against the order dated 11.1.2005 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, respondent No. 3 filed an appeal under Section 20(1) of the Act. The appeal was allowed by holding that the water course 'AB' was running on the spot for the last many years and it was best suited for better irrigation. The water course was accordingly sanctioned and expenditure involved was to be borne by respondent No. 3.