IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER Daulat Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.7953/2005) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order: March 30, 2009 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Tanveer Ahmad, for the petitioner. Mr. Krishna Verma, Addl. GA for the State. BY THE COURT: The petitioner has challenged the resolution passed by the District Public Grievance and Vigilance Committee, Jhalawar, (`the Committee' for short) whereby the Committee has decided to lodge a First Information Report against the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be a bonafide resident of village Kotari, Tehsil Pidawa, District Jhalawar. He completed his education upto primary level at village Dedariya (Soyat) in M.P. After completing the primary education, the petitioner completed his education upto High School level at Pidawa. The petitioner also claims to have a house at village Kotari. On the basis of certificates issued by the Tehsildar Pidawa and the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Kotari, on 11-8-1994, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jhalawar issued bonafide residence certificate to the petitioner. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kotari issued domicile certificate in favour of the petitioner on 5-8-90, 22-6-2000 and 14-2-2002. Voter Identity card was also issued to petitioner in the year 1991. Further, in pursuance of the advertisement for the post of Teacher Gr.III in District Jhalawar, the petitioner applied for the same. Vide order dated 28-3-96, he was appointed on the post of Teacher Gr.III under the provisions of Rajasthan Subordinate Service Rules,1971. The petitioner joined the post on 11-4-96 at Secondary School Mogra. Subsequently, a complaint was made against the petitioner. In the complaint, it was alleged that the petitioner is resident of M.P. and that he has obtained the appointment by procuring false and forged bonafide residence certificate. On the basis of such complaint, on 22- 3-2005, the District Public Grievance and Vigilance Committee Jhalawar resolved to lodge a FIR against the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has preferred instant writ petition. 3. The resolution dated 22-3-2005 is as under:- कायर्वाहीिववरणबैठकिजलाजनअिभयोग् एवंसतकर्तासिमित झालावाडिदनांक 22-3-2005 िजलाजनअिभयोग् एवंसतकर्तासिमितकीबैठकिदनांक 22-3- 2005 कोूात: 1100 बजेौीनरेशपालगंगवारिजलाकलेक् टरमहोदय कीअध् यक्षतामेंआयोिजतहई। ु ौीदौलतरामआत् मजबालारामशमार्अघ् यापककेिवरूƨ िशकायत हैिकयहमध् यूदेशकािनवासीहैएवंमामकोटडीतहसीलिपडावाका मूलिनवासूमाणपऽबमांक: 953/ न् याय/94 िदनांक 11-8-94 काउप िजलामिजः शेटझालावाडसेूाप् तिकयाहै।ौीदौलतरामकोिजला िशक्षाअिधकारीछाऽसंः थाएंझालावाडकेकायार्लयआदेशबमांक: िजिशअ/ झा/ संः था-।/ िनयु/ तृ.वे.ौं.अध् याप. 95-96/202 िदनांक 28- 3-96 सेमाध् यिमकिपधालयमोगरामेंतृतीयवेतनौंखलाअध् यापक केपदपरिनयुिक् तदीगईहै।ूकरणमेंउपखण् डअिधकारीिपडावाका जांचूितवेदनपऽांक:1406 िदनांक 25-6-04 का्ूाप् तहआ ु है।जांच अिधकारीकोजांचकेदौरानमूलिनवासकीमूलपऽावलीउपिजला मिजः शेटझालावाडƮाराउपलब् धनहींकरवाईगईहै।जांचअिधकारीने जांचूितवेदनमेंविणर्तिनवार्चकनामाविलयांकीआंिशकूितिलिपयां सत् यािपतकरनहींिभजवाईहै।सहायकिनदेशकअिभयोजनझालावाड बैठकमेंउपिः थतहएु एवंबतायािकमूलिनवासकीमूलपऽावलीिबना उपलब् धहएु िकसीः पं टिनणर्यपरपहंचु पानासंभवएवंन् यायसंगत नहींहोगा।उपिजलामिजः शेटझालावाडमूलिनवासकीमूलपऽावली तलाशकरवाकरउपलब् धकरावें।उपखण् डअिधकारीिपडावाजांच ूितवेदनमेंविणर्तिनवार्चकनामाविलयɉ कीआंिशकूितिलिपयां सत् यािपतकरअिवलà बिभजवावें। A perusal of the resolution clearly reveals that qua the petitioner no decision was taken by the committee that a FIR be lodged against him. The Committee had merely called for certain documents. It had not reached any final decision with regard to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked by this Court to show a single line concerning the petitioner where a decision had been taken that a FIR be lodged against him. The learned counsel stated that although no such decision had been taken by the Committee, but such decision has been taken against other persons, namely Govind Kumawat and others. Thus, the petitioner had a bonafide apprehension that a FIR would also be lodged against him. But, in para 9 of the writ petition, the petitioner has clearly stated that “a decision was taken that a FIR be lodged against the petitioner and others”. The said contents of the para are obviously against the decision reproduced above. Therefore, the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court. Hence, the petitioner has not come before the court with clean hands. 5. In the case of K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2008)12 SCC 481, the Apex Court has observed that where the petitioner makes a false statement, or conceals material facts, or misleads the Court, then it is the duty of the High Court to reject such a writ petition at the threshold itself without considering the merits of the petition. 6. In the present case, the petitioner has intentionally mislead the Court by making a statement that the Committee had recommended that a FIR be lodged against him. Since, the petitioner has not come with clean hands before this court, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. 7. A writ petition cannot be filed on the basis of mere apprehension, that too when the apprehension is not based on cogent facts. In the present case since no final decision has been taken with regard to lodging of a FIR, obviously the writ petition is pre-mature. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti, (2008)12 SCC 675, has observed that pre-mature writ should not be entertained. 9. Thus, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is, hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn