IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.18181 of 2010 Shrikant Prasad Sharma, S/o-Late Ambika Prasad Singh, resident of Village- Dhibar, P.S.-Pandarak, District-Patna. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. K.N. Jha, Son of Late J.N. Jha, presently posted as Manager, Human Resources, N.T.P.C. Ltd., Barh, P.S.-Pandarak, District-Patna. 3. The Manager, N.T.P.C. Ltd. Corporate Office, New Delhi. –Opposite Parties. ----------- 09 22.06.2011 Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appears for N.T.P.C. and files a show-cause sworn by the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, N.T.P.C. Ltd. Let learned counsel for the N.T.P.C. file a duly affidavited show-cause as the show-cause filed is merely an affidavit notarized and not sworn before the Oath Commissioner. That may be done in due course. Heard the parties. Notice had been issued to the N.T.P.C. for initiating proceedings under Section-340 Cr.P.C. for allegedly swearing false affidavit. The petitioner had first filed a writ petition before this Court, inter alia, alleging that mala fidely N.T.P.C. had altered the plans for water way for its thermal power plant at Barh. The effect was that initially people saved their land at the cost of the petitioner. A counter affidavit was filed by N.T.P.C. at the first instance annexing a plan that petitioner accepted the same and sought permission to withdraw the application, inasmuch as, as per the plan annexed he was not to be - 2 - disturbed. Apparently, N.T.P.C. noticed its mistake and a second counter affidavit was filed admitting that a plan which was a preliminary plan was earlier filed that had been revised after technical survey and approved at the highest level. Upon these pleadings, this Court refused to interfere in the technical matter and dismissed the writ petition. It appears thereafter the son of the petitioner challenged acquisition proceedings in a separate writ petition. In that writ petition the Hon’ble Single Judge notwithstanding the order of this Court in the earlier proceedings, which stood affirmed in the Intra Court appeal by the Division Bench, took a slightly different view of the matter. It noticed the shifting defence of N.T.P.C. Upon these findings the present application was filed for initiating proceedings in terms of Section-340 Cr.P.C. as against the N.T.P.C. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that as against the order passed in the second writ petition, the petitioner themselves preferred a Letters Patent Appeal in which the Division Bench virtually held that it was inappropriate for the Hon’ble Single Judge in the second writ proceedings to take a different view of the matter. Once the matter had been examined in the first writ petition which stood affirmed in the Intra Court Appeal, as such, the second Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed. In view of the observations as made in the - 3 - second Letters Patent Appeal as preferred by the petitioner’s son, in my view, nothing remains to be pursued. So far as the order of this Court in the first writ petition is concerned that clearly notices the change of stand of N.T.P.C. itself in the proceedings with due explanation. At best what can be said against N.T.P.C. is that its officers lack clarity while filing affidavits. The only word of caution is that they should act more responsibly in matters dealing with Court. With these observations, this proceeding is disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)