IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 637 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 25, 2011 Shyam Lal Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 6. Mr. R. L. Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No. 8. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned letter dated 20.1.2011, Annexure P-7, may be quashed and set aside and the whole process preceding before issuance of the letter may be held illegal. Further, in case during the pendency of the writ petition any action is taken on the basis of letter dated 20.1.2011, the said action may be held illegal. (ii) That the respondent No. 2 may be directed pass reasoned order on the representation dated 8.2.2011. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (iii) Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted. (iv) Costs of the petition may also be awarded.” 2. Annexure P-7 is the communication written by the Project Officer to the Block Development Officer conveying that upon proper inquiry it was found that entry pertaining to the separation of petitioner Sh. Shyam Lal in the pariwar register was incorporated without complying with the provisions of law in an illegal manner. 3. According to the petitioner copy of this order was never served upon him, nor was he ever served with a copy of the complaint filed before the Deputy Commissioner. Petitioner himself has annexed this order (Annexure P-7) in these proceedings. Not only that he preferred representation (Annexure P-8) to the Deputy Commissioner. No orders thereupon have been passed till date. Be that as it may be, the fact of the matter is that in an inquiry which was got conducted by the Deputy Commissioner through the revenue/village officials, including the Pradhan, it so revealed that in fact, as on the date when the entry in the register pertaining to separation was incorporated in the record, petitioner was minor. Not only that petitioner himself made statement (Annexure R-5/C), before the Pradhan which reads as under:- “Today on dated 17-09-2009 Shyam Lal s/o Sh. Hari Singh r/o Village Khandla P.O. Kummi Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. present in the office of Gram Panchayat Khandla. 3 Statement:- Shyam Lal s/o Hari Singh r/o Khandla aged 39 years has stated that my Pariwar khata was separated in the year of 1989. Since then I am living separately from my parents and pariwar khata of Kamaldev s/o Himmat Ram was also separated in that year, whereas the marriage of Kamaldev was held in the year of 1991, 1992. In the year of 2007 my name was selected in BPL list by the Gram Sabha. I am owner of 0-2-0 bigha landed property situated in Muhal Kummi. This is my statement, which I, read and heard.” 4. The statement is evidently clear. It was made by the petitioner before the Pradhan who was associated by the authorities for conducting the inquiry. Petitioner does not dispute the correctness/veracity of his statement, however, it is urged that the statement was made in a context of which he was not even aware of. This is a very strange defence taken by the petitioner. On the basis of the entry of separation of family in the record, petitioner has been availing benefits of various schemes, including I.R.D.P., floated by the Government and also availing various facilities to which he is otherwise not entitled to, for the reason that he being the only son was in fact living with his father and that the entry in the register recording separation of the family, pertains to the period when petitioner himself was a minor. Birth certificate (Annexure – P1) also issued by the Gram Panchayat cannot be accepted on its face value in view of the specific findings of the inquiry committee. 4 5. The fact that petitioner himself had made statement before some authority in relation to some proceedings/inquiry was concealed by him from this Court. This fact ought to have been mentioned in the petition. In my view, by suppressing relevant and material fact petitioner has obtained interim order from this Court on 17.2.2011, which now stands vacated. 6. For the aforesaid reasons the present petition, without any merit is dismissed. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 25, 2011 (PK)