Dismissed

Imranulla Khan Shafaatulla Khan v. Shakil Ahmad Khan Peer Khan and 9 Others

Bombay HC1 Sept 2016PIL/31/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a petitioner who had falsely sworn in an affidavit that he had no personal motive in the matter, despite evidence of pending personal litigation with the respondent, emphasizing the sanctity of affidavit evidence and imposing costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited in the Chief Minister's Draught Relief Fund within ten days.

Imranulla Khan Shafaatulla Khan Vs Shakil… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

19pil31.16

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

P.I.L. No.31 of 2016

¶5

(Imranulla Khan Shafaatulla Khan .vs. Shakil Ahmad Khan Peer Khan and Ors.)

¶6

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office notes, Office Memoranda of

¶7

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶8

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶9

Mr.S.D.Chande, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.F.T.Mirza, Adv. for respondent no.1.

¶10

CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ . DATE : 1st September, 2016.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

Initially, a Writ Petition was filed by the present petitioner. However, it appears that the Division Bench vide order dt.21.8.2015 observed that the relief prayed for by the petitioner could not be granted in the present petition and adjourned the matter so as to enable the petitioner to take steps to seek registration of the Writ Petition as a Public Interest Litigation.

¶13

Perusal of the earlier affidavit filed by the present petitioner would reveal that he has made a categorical statement that he has no personal gain, private motive or oblige reason in filing the present Writ Petition. However, another affidavit was filed on 21.9.2015 pointing out therein various petitions pending between the petitioner and respondent no.1.

¶14

It is, thus, clear that an averment is made in the

¶15

19pil31.16

¶16

2/3

¶17

affidavit dt.21.9.2015 to the effect that the petitioner has no personal gain, private motive or oblige reason to his knowledge. It is stated in the subsequent affidavit that the said affidavit is filed in the format. The averments are not mere formalities. Every statement made on oath has to be true and correct to the knowledge of the person affirming the same.

¶18

Though the petitioner was very much aware that number of litigations that are pending between the petitioner and the respondent, he has knowingly made a false statement before this Court on an affidavit that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblige reason in filing the instant petition.

¶19

The present Public Interest Litigation is, therefore, dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs.10,000/- .

¶20

The amount of costs be deposited in the Chief Minister's Draught Relief Fund and the receipt thereof be placed on the record of the present P.I.L. within ten days. If the receipt is not placed on the record within ten days, Office shall initiate suo motu proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act.

JUDGE JUDGE

**_jaiswal_*

19pil31.16

3/3

CERTIFICATE

I certify that this Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Order.

¶27

Uploaded by : Jaiswal, P.S. Uploaded on : 2.9.2016.

Imranulla Khan Shafaatulla Khan v. Shakil Ahmad Khan Peer Khan and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imranulla Khan Shafaatulla Khan v. Shakil Ahmad Khan Peer Khan and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shabbir Yar Khan and Ors. Vs Shri. Pramod Naralkar and Anr.

Devendra Nath Tripathi Vs the Secretary Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and 3 Ors.

Shaikh Ilyas Bashir Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Shri Prakash P. Kukreja Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shivaji Jagannath Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Imran Ibrahim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Mr. Pushkaraj Shekherrao Indurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Cabinet Secretary and Ors.

Shivaji Jagannath Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs M/S White Cliff Tea and Anor.

Dr. Sanjay Ganpatrao Gujjanwar Vs Director of Health Service, Arogya Bhavan, St. Georges Hospital Campus, Near C.S.T., Mumbai and Ano

Sunil S/O Anandrao Wankhede Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department Home, Mumbai and Another

Smt. Pinky W/O. Harendra Ukey Vs Union of India Thr. the Central Pollution Control Board, Parivesh Bhavan, Delhi and Others

Vilas S/O Poshatti Chandurakar Vs State of Maharashtra Ministry of Cooperation Marketing and Textiles Dept., Mumbai and Others

Maheshkumar S/O. Gopilal Agrawal and Another Vs the State of Maha. through Its Secretary, Co-Operation, Marketing and Textile Dept. and Others