The High Court allowed the petitioner partnership firm M/s Atasha Ashirvad Builders, Nagpur, to withdraw its writ petition and imposed the ‘exemplary costs’ of Rs 1 lakh on it.
Nagpur: Striking a balance between ending controversy and fulfilling the need for maintaining purity of system of administration of justice, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court has allowed the petitioner partnership firm M/s Atasha Ashirvad Builders, Nagpur, to withdraw its writ petition and imposed ‘exemplary costs’ of Rs 1 lakh on it.
Today’s Rate
Tuesday 12 Nov. 2024
Accordingly, the Division Bench comprising Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice M S Jawalkar at the High Court here has directed that half of the amount of costs shall be paid to respondent — Sandeep Constructions, Hinganghat in Wardha district through RTGS mode or demand-draft and remaining 50 per cent shall be deposited in the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur, within two weeks from the date of this order.
The High Court has noted that on going through the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has noticed that still the petitioner has not admitted his mistake about tendering to the court false and fabricated document and now even the petitioner contends that the document of September 16, 2021 on which reliance was placed is now not traceable. The High Court reminded that it had already recorded a prima-facie finding that there was some interpolation and overwriting in this document of September 16, 2021 which related to the date of its receipt by the authority. With all this in the background, this court had directed the petitioner to produce on record a copy of the letter of September 16, 2021, bearing the original acknowledgement.
Initially, the petitioner did not submit the document on ‘some grounds’, and now the petitioner states that this document is not traceable. The High Court has pointed out that having relied upon the document which apparently contains interpolation and overwriting, the petitioner now cannot shy away from the responsibility to produce on record a document which contains an original acknowledgement given by the Public Works Department. But, the petitioner still maintained the stand as he had taken recently.
The petitioner’s prayer for permission to withdraw the petition was opposed by Adv R M Bhangde on behalf of the respondent — Sandeep Constructions, stating that the misconduct of the petitioner committed deliberately, must be taken to its logical end by the High Court by taking action for contempt of court against him.
Adv Kaustubh Deogade appeared for the petitioner. Additional GP D P Thakre represented the State.
