Concealing material facts and making false statements in a writ petition amounts to intentionally giving false evidence in a stage of judicial proceeding, which constitutes an offense against public justice and can lead to dismissal of the petition, imposition of costs, and prosecution under the Indian Penal Code.

( 1 ) BY this petition, and the facts averred in it, the Court was led to pass an ad interim order on 21/09/1993, as the petitioner had contended that the recovery certificate, issued by the Collector, Ghaziabad on the initiative of the Union of India, the Department of Telecommunication, was illegal, without jurisdiction and irregular and the petitioner was a total stranger to the recovery proceedings initiated against him, as he had nothing to do with the amount being realised under the recovery certificate issued under the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. A short resume of facts is given in the writ petition to suggest that the recovery certificate is connected with a Public Call Office/ Subscriber Trunk Dialling (hereinafter referred to as pco/ STD) connection on a licence was issued to the Messers D. G. Associates, Ghaziabad which, otherwise, is a proprietorship business of one D. P. S. Malik, and that the petitioner has nothing to do with the business and is an alien and an absolute stranger to the licence which may have been granted by the Department of Telecommunication, on the business being run by the firm, aforesaid, through its proprietor, D. P. S. Malik.

( 2 ) THE contention before the Court was that there being absolutely no nexus at all between the petitioner and the PCO/std business which was being run under a licence by the firm, aforesaid, through its proprietor, as named above.

( 3 ) THE Court had called upon the Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India to examine this matter and find out whether what the petitioner contends is correct and specifically give information to the Court that the recovery certificate, as the petitioner contends, has anything to do with the petitioner, Gulshan Kumar, as he so states in the writ petition.

( 4 ) THE Senior Standing Counsel sent a message seeking the original record from Ghaziabad, to be made available to the Court, with the matter being adjourned. The record yet not being made available on the adjourned date.

( 5 ) ON 21/09/1993, finding that the averments in the writ petition were not controverted, despite an opportunity to the Union of India, and the Court being of the opinion that the Union of India was not placing the original record and while what the petitioner had contended, was not contradicted, there was no occasion to deny an interim order. A stay order was passed staying the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,45,609. 00. The matter was then posted on 6/10/1993, at the request of the Union of India.

( 6 ) ON 6/10/1993 learned Senior Standing Counsel, Central Government, made a submission before the Court that the original record has been made available to him and he would like to submit by a counter affidavit and thereafter place the submissions of the Union of India on an affidavit as well as the record for the perusal of the Court. The Court granted the adjournment though directing that the Senior Standing Counsel will also obtain an explanation from the officials concerned, by an affidavit, on why the record had not been made available to the Senior Standing Counsel, despite being sought, under a direction of the Court on the next day, 7/10/1993, the Union of India filed two affidavits - one a counter affidavit in answer to the writ petition and the other an affidavit of the official concerned explaining why the record had not been made available to the Senior Standing Counsel for the perusal of the Court. As 7/10/1993, was close to the weekend, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. D. Mandhyan, desired time to file a rejoinder affidavit, until Monday next, which opportunity was granted by the Court. The matter was placed before the Court on Monday, i. e. , 11/10/1993.

( 7 ) A perusal of the counter affidavit of the Union of India as also the original record, placed before the Court, now gave an entirely another picture than what the petitioner contended in his petition, supported by an affidavit, and, thus, this Co