CWP No. 9639 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 9639 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision 15.12.2011 Professor Colony Welfare Association . Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr.Pawan Kumar Aryan , Advocate for the appellants Mr. Anil Khetarpal, Advocate for the applicants Mr. Ashok Jindal, Addl. AG Hy. For respondents 1,2,6,8,9 and 10 Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for respondents 3 and 4 Mr. RK Saini, Advocate for respondent no.5 Mr. JP Bhatt, Advocate for the respondent no. 7 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR,J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of direction to the respondents for shifting cremation ground away from the residential homes of professor colony and its locality. The petitioner has also prayed for restraining the respondents from causing pollution and nuisance by way of burning human dead bodies in Municipal owned land. 2. In response to notice of motion, respondent nos. 1 and 10 have filed their written statement. A separate written statement has also been filed by respondent nos. 3 and 4. The common stand taken by the respondents in both the written statements is that the petitioners have mis- used the process of the Court and they have not approached the Court with clean hands. It has been revealed that an application was filed by the CWP No. 9639 of 2010 2 petitioners under section 133 Cr.P.C. before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagadhri which was decided on 16.11.2010. The said order was further challenged before the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge Yamunanagar at Jagadhri and the said revision petition was decided on 11.5.2011 (R.1). The case was remanded back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagadhri which is still pending. It has also been pointed out that there is a Civil Suit No. 196 of 2001 dated 20.7.2001 filed by the petitioner or their close associates seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents from using the land and construction of shed for cremation. The suit was dismissed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Yamunanagar vide judgement and decree dated 7.11.2008 (R/2/2). Against the aforesaid judgement and decree Civil Appeal No. 146 of 2008 was preferred before the learned Addl. District Judge which has been dismissed on 11.11.2009 (R/2/3). Regular Second Appeal No. 887 of 2010 was also dismissed on 24.2.2010 and the judgement is reported as Balbir Singh and others v. Municipal Council, Yamunanagar and others PLR 2010(2) 334. A reference has also been made to other litigations in para 1 of the preliminary submissions of the written statement filed by respondent nos. 3 and 4. We do not feel the necessity of burdening this order with the aforesaid facts. 3. We have the learned counsel for the petitioners at a considerable length. 4. We are satisfied that the petitioners have been mis-using the process of the Court. The writ petition has been filed without fully disclosing the aforesaid facts. There is a calculative and a designed concealment, for the purposes of securing notice of motion. This is sufficient reason for the writ Court to dismiss the writ petition and deny CWP No. 9639 of 2010 3 the petitioner decision on merits. In that regard reliance may be placed on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Chiranji Lal and others v. F.C. Haryana and others 1978 PLR 582. 5. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, we saddle the petitioner with costs of Rs. 20,000/- which may be deposited with the Member Secretary, Haryana Legal Aid Services Authority within a period of two months from today. If the cost is not deposited, the office shall list the case for appropriate orders. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Rajiv Narain Raina) 15.12.2011 Judge okg