1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4329 OF 2008 ABDUL HAKIM ABDUL HAMID BAGWAN V/S STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ... Shri H.I.Pathan, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri D.V.Tele, AGP for respondents 1,2 & 5 and Shri P.S.Agrawal, Advocate for respondents 3 and 4. ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. Dated : October 27, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.2.2007 passed by respondent No.2 Committee. 3. Learned counsel Shri Agrawal for respondents 3 and 4 invited our attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by him in this petition on 15.10.2008 and more specifically paragraph No.7 thereof, wherein, it has been stated that present petitioner has earlier filed Writ Petition No.1405 of 2007 before this Court challenging the same order passed by respondent Scrutiny Committee dated 15.2.2007 and that the said petition has been admitted but interim relief was rejected. Shri Agrawal, learned Advocate 2 further submitted that the petitioner without bringing this fact to the notice of this Court has further made a statement on oath in present Writ Petition that he has not filed any other Writ Petition before this Court challenging the aforesaid order dated 15.2.2007. It is also canvassed by Shri Agrawal, learned counsel that the said statement made by the petitioner is a false statement and the said statement is nothing but an attempt to play a fraud upon this Court and hence petitioner needs to be punished for making such a false statement on oath. 4. On perusal of the proceedings of Writ Petition No.1405 of 2007, it is explicitly clear that the petitioner has filed the said petition challenging the order dated 15.2.2007 passed by respondent No.3 therein (Scrutiny Committee) and Rule has been issued therein but no interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner. It is pending before this Court, awaiting final decision. 5. In the light of the aforesaid facts, it is amply clear that petitioner Abdul Hakim Abdul Hamid Bagwan has earlier filed Writ Petition No.1405 of 2007 challenging the order dated 15.2.2007 passed by the Scrutiny Committee as well as he has also filed present Writ Petition i.e. Writ Petition No.4329 of 2008 also assailing the same order. Pertinently, in paragraph No. 14 of the later petition i.e. Writ Petition No.4329 of 2008, the petitioner has stated that he has not filed any other proceeding in any other Court of law including the Honourable Supreme Court of India, touching to the subject matter, although earlier Writ Petition filed by him was pending before this 3 Court. Hence, it is crystal clear that petitioner Abdul Hakim Abdul Hamid Bagwan has filed two Writ Petitions challenging the one and same order dated 15.2.2007 passed by respondent - Scrutiny Committee, so also made a false statement in the later petition, as quoted above. 6. Shri Agrawal, learned Advocate prays for saddling a heavy costs of Rs.Ten Thousand upon the petitioner for his aforesaid conduct. Shri Pathan, learned Advocate for the petitioner, on instructions, requests to dispose of the present petition as not pressed. 7. In view of the aforesaid position and also considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, present Writ Petition can be disposed of as not pressed but subject to payment of costs of Rs.Five Thousand to be paid by the petitioner to respondents 3 and 4 proportionately, within specified period, considering the conduct of the petitioner herein. 8. In the result, present Writ Petition stands disposed of as not pressed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. Five Thousand by the petitioner to respondents 3 and 4 proportionately, within two weeks from today. (SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) ... akl