The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered a CBI inquiry into the filing of a writ petition alleging illegal mining in Mahendergarh district and the subsequent attempt to withdraw it after finding both developments “highly suspect".
Following orders by the Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, the premier investigation agency has already instituted a preliminary inquiry in the matter and has undertaken to submit a report within three months. “Let that be done,” the Bench asserted, while fixing the case for further hearing on August 11.
The Bench, in its previous order, had directed CBI Deputy Director to inquire into the genuineness of the plea’s filing by the petitioner Ashok and his subsequent attempt to withdraw it. The Bench also ordered that the role of Satpal Singh, who appeared with the petitioner in court, be examined. A copy of the order has been directed to be sent to the office of Additional Solicitor General of India Satya Pal Jain.
The petition had alleged that illegal mining was being undertaken in Bakhrija village in Mahendergarh district contrary to the mining plan, the environmental clearance certificate and statutory rules. The petitioner had sought directions for payment of compensation by the private respondent and for ensuring that no illegal mining was undertaken within a radius of 250 metres from his house. Reliance was also placed on an interim order passed by the High Court on January 31 in a pending matter concerning alleged illegal mining.
The Bench noted time was granted to the State to obtain instructions, when the petition came up on March 27. The court was also informed that the issues raised in the petition were similar to those engaging the attention of the High Court in the pending case of M/s Dharampal Stone Crusher and others versus State of Haryana and others.
The Bench further recorded that an assisting counsel appeared on April 16 and stated that the petitioner did not wish to press the writ petition and wanted to withdraw it. Not satisfied with the reasons for the proposed withdrawal, the court directed the petitioner to appear personally.
“We are doubtful of the intent and purpose behind the withdrawal of the writ petition," the Bench had observed while directing the petitioner’s personal appearance. As the matter came up for resumed hearing, the petitioner appeared before the court and stated that he was illiterate. The Bench recorded that he was unable to explain why the writ petition had been filed or why it was being withdrawn.
The court noted that a new counsel appeared with a no-objection from the previous counsel. It added that the petitioner was “absolutely clueless about the cause which he has raised in the writ petition, nor is he aware as to how the petition has been prepared and drafted."
The Bench also referred to the presence of one Satpal Singh, who claimed to be a driver from Narnaul. “We tried to understand as to how he is associated or related to the petitioner, but he too has concealed more than what he has disclosed us,” the Bench observed
The Bench further noted discrepancies in the signatures. While the vakalatnama filed in court carried the petitioner’s signatures in Hindi, the writ petition bore signatures in English. The petitioner, according to the order, also stated that he was illiterate.
The court observed that both the filing of the writ petition and its withdrawal appeared “highly suspect". Referring to the allegations of illegal mining, it noted that a serious view had already been taken by the High Court in matters relating to illegal mining in the Aravallis and that a detailed order running into 61 paragraphs had been passed on January 31. The Bench added that the allegations in the present petition were serious and similar in nature.
“The manner in which the petition has been filed and subsequently the petitioner has come forward to withdraw it, raises a serious doubt with regard to the genuineness of filing of the writ petition by the present petitioner and his subsequent attempt to withdraw it. It appears that somebody else is acting through the petitioner, and his signatures prima facie have been forged in the writ petition,” the court observed.
The Bench asserted the direction was being issued because it did not approve of filing of fictitious writs by unknown persons through strangers for oblique motives and then withdrawing it after the purpose is served. “Proceedings before this Court cannot be taken for a ride. We are therefore compelled to issue these directions in order to ascertain correct facts,” the court added.
