CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 962 OF 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: October 20, 2008. Parties Name Satnam Kaur and others ..PETITIONERS VERSUS Union of India and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab, Mr. J.S. Bhandohal, Advocate, for respondent No. 6. Mr. A.R.Takkar, Advocate, for respondent No. 7. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE (oral) JUDGMENT This petition purports to have been filed on behalf of five different petitioners described in the cause title. Three out of the said CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 962 OF 2007 -2- petitioners, namely, Mohinder Kaur, Gurwinder Singh and Amrik Singh are said to have filed affidavits before the Department of Rural Development and Panchayat inter alia stating that they have no objection to the setting up of the Sewerage Treatment Plant at its present location over an area measuring 2 -1/2 acres of land, owned by the Gram Panchayat. More importantly the affidavits state that the deponents have come to know that somebody has filed a writ petition No. 962 of 2007 in this Court , with which the deponents are not in any way concerned. The affidavits go on to state that if somebody has wrongly filed the case, mentioned above, by using the names of the deponents, then the deponents would not like to pursue the matter and would have no objection in case the proceedings were closed. The Vakalatnama, filed by M/S Deepak Agnihotri and Girish Agnihotri, counsel for the petitioners, purports to have been signed by four out of the five petitioners while the 5th , namely Mohinder Kaur is said to have affixed her thumb -impression on the same. When the matter came up before us today, we were informed by counsel for the respondents that the Gram Panchayat has already passed a resolution and offered an alternate piece of land at a distance of only 1 Km. from the location originally identified for the proposed plant and that the proposed STP is not coming up at the original location. The plant, according to counsel appearing for the State Government and the Gram Panchayat, would be constructed at the alternative site now fixed for that purpose. In the light of the said subsequent developments, it is submitted by Mr. Harmail Singh husband of petitioner No. 1, who is present in person, that the petition could be disposed of as the grievance against the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 962 OF 2007 -3- setting up of the STP at the original location stands redressed by the shifting of the said plant to an alternative location away from the village Abadi. He further submits that since a part of the land identified for construction of the plant had been dug up and a pit nearly 10 feet deep has been formed at the site, the authorities could, therefore, be directed to fill up the said pit to avoid any accident or danger to human life. In the circumstances, therefore, and keeping in view the submissions made at the bar, we see no reason to continue with the present proceedings as the issue regarding the suitability of the location of the STP stands resolved by the respondents by shifting of the plant to an alternative location. We are, however, concerned about the affidavits filed by petitioners No. 2,3 and 4 before the authorities suggesting that the present writ petition has not been filed by them and that their names have been wrongly mentioned in the same. When questioned about the true position, Mr. Harmail Singh, who is present, submitted that although petitioners No. 2 , 3 and 4 were also parties to the writ petition, they appear to have been pressurized by the Panchayat authorities to withdraw from the proceedings subsequently. He submitted that the writ petition had been got drafted by him from M/s Deepak Agnihotri and Girish Agnihotri, Advocates , and that it was he alone, who visited the chamber of the said Advocates as the representative of his wife Smt. Satnam Kaur. The Vakalatnama was never the less signed by all the five petitioners including Mohinder Kaur, who had affixed her thumb impression. The allegation that petitioners No. 2,3 and 4 were at no stage associated with the filing of the present writ petition and their specific denial regarding the filing of the petition raises a serious issue regarding CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 962 OF 2007 -4- fabrication of documents and pleadings filed before this Court. Before we proceed against the person responsible for the same, we consider it appropriate to direct a preliminary enquiry into the matter by the District and Sessions Judge -cum- Registrar (Vigilance), Haryana. He shall accordingly hold an enquiry and submit a report to this Court for appropriate directions expeditiously but not later than three months from today. He shall secure the presence of the parties concerned in connection with the enquiry, record their statements, verify the true facts and report whether or not the writ petition was filed by petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4, as alleged or their names were falsely shown as petitioners as asserted by the said petitioners. The original affidavits, referred to in the counter affidavit by respondent No. 2, shall be produced by the concerned authorities before the Registrar (Vigilance). Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous on account of subsequent developments. The report of the District & Sessions Judge -cum- Registrar (Vigilance), Haryana, on the issues indicated above shall, however, be put up for orders along with record of this case on February 2, 2009. ( T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (JASBIR SINGH) October 20 , 2008. JUDGE DKC