MAHENDRA PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE after case is now coming to the Patna High Court. It is a very disturbing feature that dockets are resting on falsehood. The prerogative writ jurisdiction of the High Court is an extraordinary remedy. It is not meant for a liar. It is meant for gentlemen. The time now has come that when the Court issues a writ of certiorari in its prerogative writ jurisdiction, the authority to whom the writ is addressed to simply bring forth the record as a conventional practice, that parties may exchange pleadings this is entirely another matter.

(2.) WITHIN one week and with two days yet to go, four cases have engaged the Patna High Court, before this Bench alone, of false records. There is something wrong in the sanctity of pleadings, rendered either by the litigants or by those who plead on their behalf.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 5 Mahendra Paswan, in the writ petition, filed a Letter Patent Appeal No. 301 of 1998. This was admitted. The prayer for an ad interim order was not pressed as it was on record that the State Government had given an undertaking on an affidavit of a Deputy Secretary in Road Construction Department one Sheikh Md. Sultan, to the effect to that the order which was quashed in the writ petition would not be given effect to and undertook that it would be subject to the order in the Letters Patent Appeal This record awaits hearing.