IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 52 of 2010 Ruchi Rana ……… Appellant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others .………. Respondents. Mr. Siddhartha Sah and Mr. R.K. Verma, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Date of Judgment: 27-04-2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) Mr. Pramod Joshi, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax is present in Court in person. 2. Notice in the instant special appeal was issued on account of the emphatic contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, based on the answer sheets of the appellant as well as those of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Copies of the answer sheets of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (photocopies of the original) were appended to the writ petition as Annexure 4, they are available on the record of the writ petition at page Nos. 17 and 20, whereas the answer sheet (photocopy of the original) of the appellant (also a part of Annexure 4) was at page No. 22 of the writ petition. Under the belief, that the answer sheets of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were actually photocopies of the original, notice was issued to respondent Nos. 1 to 3, requiring the respondents to produce originals thereof. 3. The originals have been produced in this Court by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax. Whilst the photocopy of the answer sheet of the appellant is as per the original, those of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 do not match with the originals, depicting far greater mistakes than those indicated in the originals. It is, therefore apparent, that the appellant did not approach this Court with clean hands. We invited the attention of the 2 learned counsel for the appellant to these documents. After examining the same, learned counsel for the appellant acknowledged, that the documents placed on the record of the writ petition (as the photocopies of the answer sheets of respondent Nos. 4 and 5) indeed do not match with the originals. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant acknowledged, that the instant special appeal is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 4. In view of the above, we consider it just and appropriate to dismiss the instant special appeal with costs quantified at Rs. 20,000/-. Out of the aforesaid costs, Rs. 10,000/- shall be deposited by the appellant with the Bar Association of the High Court of Uttarakhand, whereas the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be deposited with the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Uttarakhand. The receipts obtained after depositing the costs shall be placed on the record of this case within one month from today. In case the aforesaid receipts are not placed on the record of this case within one month, the Registry is directed to re-list this case for motion hearing for the recovery of the costs. 5. The instant special appeal stands dismissed in the aforesaid terms. Amit (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 27.04.2010 27.04.2010