( 1 ) HEARD Mr. S. J. Shahfor the original petitioner, Mr. G. D. Bhatt for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Chandulal Jethalal Jaiswal, the respondent No. 1 in the main petition as well as applicant in Civil Application No. 133/05 who is appearing as party in person. Since the party in person was appearing I have heard him in detail. Main petition is for challenging the order, dated 26. 4. 93 passed by the Press Council of India.

( 2 ) MR. SHAH, at the outset, submitted that the petitioner is desirous to withdraw the petition and therefore permission may be granted to the petitioner to withdraw the petition. Mr. Bhatt, Ld. advocate for the respondent No. 2-Press Council of India has left the matter to the court. Mr. Bhatt submitted that he is supporting the order passed by the Press Council of India, however, for withdrawal of the petition, he leaves the matter to the court.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1, Mr. Jaiswal who has also preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 133/05, objected to the permission to be granted to the petitioner to withdraw the petition on the grounds as mentioned in the civil application and in furtherance of the said civil application he has also submitted written synopsis. The objection is mainly on two grounds, i. e. one is that the original petitioner has made false statements in the petition and the second ground is that the withdrawal should not be permitted without payment of compensation of not less than Rs. 2 crores to him. In support of the first objection, it has been submitted interalia that the statement made in para 13 is false. The statement made at para 13 of the petition reads as under:" (13) that on account of death of the Editor of Sandesh Shri Chimanbhai Somabhai Patel and Shri Dinesh Pathak who was editing Baroda pages no action could be taken against the adjudication order made by the Press Council of India. That, however, the petitioner herein, is aggrieved by the said order of adjudication and that therefore seeks to challenge the same by this petition. "the contention as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the original respondent No. 1/applicant was that after the order passed by the Press Council of India, Chimanbhai Somabhai Patel was surviving and therefore the statement made that on account of the death of the Editor the order could not be pursued is false.

( 4 ) IN my view, the truth of the statement can be tested on the date which the affidavit has been filed, i. e. on 26. 1. 1996 and it is not the case of the applicant that on the date when the statement was made on affidavit Chimanbhai Patel had not died. It was also submitted that the prayer in the petition is for quashing of the order passed by the Press Council of India is misleading to this court and in the submission of original respondent No. 1 now the order of the Press Council of India can not be challenged in any court of law. It would be incorrect to state that the order of the Press Council of India can not be quashed by the High Court exercising constitutional power and therefore if any litigant has made any prayer for such purpose it can not be said that any false statement is made or any misguiding or misleading statement is made. Any litigant or citizen can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this court against any statutory authority or judicial or quasi judicial authority subject to limits of territorial jurisdiction.

( 5 ) MR. JAISWAL has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Suo Motu Proceedings against Mr. R. Karuppan, Advocate reported in 2001 (4) Sup. Today 108 for contending that a false statement made itself is an offence punishable under IPC and therefore this court should direct the Registrar to file a complaint against the petitioner. Mr. Jaiswal has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Rudul Sah vs State of Bihar and another reported in AIR 1983 SC 1086 for contending that in the matter where the Apex Court found that there is a case fo