T. P. S. Chawla, C. J.

( 1 ) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed by M/s. Rajender Jaina Towers Private Limited. It sought various writs, directions or orders against the Delhi Development Authority. Mr. Rajender Jain, the Managing Director of M/s. Rajender Jaina Towers Private Limited, swore an affidavit in support of the petition. The petition was filed on 27/9/1986. It came on for preliminary hearing before a Bench comprising Ms. Justice Leila Seth and myself on 29/9/1986. We issued a direction for the production of certain records by the Delhi Development Authority. We also made an interim order that the petitioner should not be dispossessed of the plot, subject matter of the petition, till the next date. This interim order was continued from time to time.

( 2 ). In compliance with the direction, the record was produced by the Delhi Development Authority. Subsequently, an affidavit sworn by Miss Janak Juneja, Secretary of the Delhi Development Authority, was filed in answer to the petition. Although three opportunities were given to the petitioner to file an affidavit-in-rejoinder, no such affidavit was filed. On 1/4/1987, counsel for the petitioner said that he had considered the matter and did not wish to file an affidavit-in-rejoinder. Consequently, we proceeded to hear counsel for the parties on the record as stood.

( 3 ). As a result of the hearing, we were of the opinion that the petition was replete with false suggestions and suppression of the true facts. It appeared to us that the false suggestions were deliberately made, and t suppression of material facts was careful and calculated. For these reasons we dismissed the petition.

( 4 ). We further recorded that we thought this was a case in which the person who swore the affidavit in support of the petition, ought to be prosecuted for perjury. However, since we were not then sure of the legal position we held the matter over. On the next date, we requested Mr. M. L. Bhargava, Advocate, who had represented the Delhi Development Authority, to assist us in the matter. He has rendered us great assistance, and we are obliged to him.

( 5 ). On 26/5/1987, we formally ordered that Mr. Rajender Jain should show cause why he should not be prosecuted for perjury. Thereafter, both parties filed further affidavits. The question now is whether a complaint for perjury should be made against Mr. Rajender Jain.

( 6 ). It is necessary for the present purpose to show how the case of the petitioner was pleaded. Paragraphs 4 to 8 of the petition need to be set out in full. They read as follows :

4. That there was a vacant plot bearing Municipal No. 20, Block No. 15-A, measuring about 220. 93 sq. mts. at Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi which the respondent Authority auctioned on 7/7/1982. The petitioner Company participated in the said auction and was the highest bidder having made a bid of Rs. 7,76,000. 00 for the said plot which was accepted and the petitioner accordingly paid a sum of Rs. 1,94,000. 00 being 25% of the bid amount. The area where the plot in dispute is situate has many commercial establishments. To the knowledge of the petitioner the Zonal Plan also shows the area as residential-cum-commercial. 5. That the petitioner company carries on business as builders and promoters in the Union Territory of Delhi. 6. That after the highest bid of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent the balance amount of Rs. 5,82,000. 00 besides a sum of Rs. 11. 00 being cost of the preparation of the lease deed was demanded by the respondent from the petitioner vide its letter dated 16/7/1982, a copy of which is being annexed herewith as Annexure "a". It is submitted that even at the time of auction the officials of the Respondent auctioned the plot knew about the petitioner being a Company engaged in the business as builders and promoters. The petitioner was also given to understand that in the area of Ajmal Khan Road, the parts of the buildings on the l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document