1 mss pil32 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 32 OF 2011 BHIMSHAKTI VICHAR MANCH & ANR. .. PETITIONERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .. RESPONDENT/S Mr. U. P. Warunjikar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP CORAM:-SMT. RANJANA DESAI & RANJIT MORE, JJ. DATED:- 22/7/2011 P.C. Petitioner 1 is a Trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Petitioner 2 is the President of the said Trust. In this public interest litigation, the petitioners have espoused the cause of the 5th respondent – Sanjay Gandhi Zopadpatti Mahasangh, majority of whose members are slum dwellers. They belong to scheduled castes or scheduled tribes. The basic grievance of the petitioners is in respect of allotment of Survey No. 85/A-1 situated at Village – Sansari, Taluka & District Nashik (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “the said 2 mss pil32 plot”). It is the case of the petitioners that the 5th respondent made an application to the 2nd respondent i.e. the Collector, Nashik for allotment of the said plot. Instead of allotting the said plot to the 5th respondent , it was alloted to respondent 4 which is a Co-operative Housing Society formed by the Senior Officers of the Government and Defence Personnel. 2. Mr. Warunjikar, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the Internal Report dated 20/2/2009 annexed to the petition at Exhibit “K” which indicates that the Devlali Cantonment Board i.e. respondent 3 has given No Objection to the allotment of the said plot to respondent 4. The said report also acknowledges that respondents 5 and 6 had also applied for the said plot. Mr. Warunjikar has also drawn our attention to the letter dated 20/3/2010 addressed by the Collector, Nashik to the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik stating that the allotment to the 5th respondent was not made as respondent 3 Devlali Cantonment Board took objection that such allotment should not be made for security reasons. Counsel made a serious grievance as regards this approach of the respondents. He submitted that, if the allotment in favour of the 5th respondent was not made because of security reasons, then, the said plot could not even have been allotted to respondent 4. Counsel has also drawn our attention to the affidavit filed by respondent 8 Shri Kunal Kumar, 3 mss pil32 presently Collector of Aurangabad, who is a member of respondent 4. Shri Kunal Kumar has made an affidavit stating that his annual income is Rs. 70,000/-. A copy of the affidavit dated 17/9/2009 is annexed to the petition at Exhibit “N”. Counsel submitted that this affidavit is obviously a false affidavit. Counsel submitted that, if a person of the rank of Collector makes a false affidavit, serious note should be taken of his conduct. Counsel submitted that, it is possible that several such affidavits are filed. He submitted that this is a fit case where enquiry should be ordered and a direction should be issued to the respondents to take action against Shri Kunal Kumar. 3. Mr. Gokhale, learned AGP has tendered in the court, affidavit dated 21/7/2011 of Mr. Jagdish Kashinath Gharat, Deputy Secretary to Government, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya. It is stated in the affidavit that the order dated 29/8/2009 passed by the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya allotting the said plot to respondent 4 has been cancelled and the land is resumed back to the Government. In view of this affidavit, in our opinion, basic grievance of the petitioners is redressed. Needless to say that, if any applications are made for the allotment of the said plot, the authorities shall consider the applications on their own merits and in accordance with law. We make it 4 mss pil32 clear that, we have expressed no opinion, on this aspect. The authorities would be entitled to consider the aspect of security of cantonment area. Threat perception falls in their domain. We do not want to interfere with it. 4. So far as the affidavit of the 8th respondent Mr. Kunal Kumar is concerned, Mr. Gokhale, learned AGP, has tendered in the court, a copy of the letter dated 21/7/2011 addressed by the Deputy Secretary of Revenue and Forest Department, State of Maharashtra to Mr. Kunal Kumar drawing his attention to the said affidavit and asking for an explanation. We notice that while asking for an explanation Mr. Kunal Kumar has been asked to be careful in future. In our opinion, filing of a false affidavit, that too by a Collector, who holds a high office, is serious. The matter needs to be probed further. Enquiry needs to be conducted to find out whether any more of such affidavits have been filed. If the result of the enquiry discloses that such affidavits have been filed, necessary action will have to be taken against the deponents of those affidavits in accordance with law. We direct the 1st respondent to appoint a senior officer of impeccable record to conduct the enquiry. The enquiry be conducted independently and in accordance with law within a period period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. We make it clear that, we have not expressed any opinion, on the allegation that possibly more such affidavits have been filed or as regards 5 mss pil32 falsity or otherwise of any affidavits. 5. The petition is disposed of, however, it shall appear “for directions” high on board on 8/11/2011. On that day, the State is directed to submit report of the enquiry. Copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra for appropriate action. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)