Parvitya Putr Purnuthaan vs Kumar Manish & Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The respondent No. 3 in this contempt petition is a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, the helm of affairs of which is regulated

by the President, who admittedly happens to be the respondent No. 1, i.e. Mr. Kumar Manish, who is present in person before this Court.

There had been a Public Interest Litigation, which was instituted before this Court being Writ Petition (PIL) No. 35 of 2019P, arvtiya Put

Purnuthaan Avam Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. An issue, whcih crept in for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court was

with regard to a wrongful collection of the building fees and development charges from the students. Later on, the Division Bench of this Court, on the

basis of the statement recorded by the learned counsel representing the present respondents there in the PIL had made a statement that they will

ensure the refund of the building and development charges, which they had wrongfully collected from as many as 66 students, studying in their

Institution.

Out of total 66 students, 5 students were shown to have been returned back with the money except the students as referred at Sl. No. 5, 6, 24, 25

and 26 of the schedule appended with the response affidavit which was filed by the respondent in the contempt petition itself by way of an affidavit of

compliance dated 9.10.2019, Annexure 1; to the said affidavit filed by Mr. Kumar Manish/respondent No. 1, who is present is person before this

Court, he has made reference to the schedule and the list of 66 students, whose money was supposed to be returned in compliance of the judgement

of the Division Bench of this Court dated 30.09.2019.

As against the aforesaid five students, namely, Aradhya Gaur, Aarohi Gaur, Pavani Sharma, Pragya Sharma and Parth Sharma, the respondent was

supposed to return back the building and the development charges wrongfully collected by them, in compliance of the Division Bench’s judgement,

which, as per the averments made in para 3 of the compliance affidavit, a statement was made on oath by Mr. Kumar Manish/respondent No. 1;

herein that he has remitted back the amount as directed by the Division Bench’s judgement of this Court and as against those 6 students, in the

last column their status of refund was shown to be as “returnedâ€​.

After filing of this compliance affidavit, this contempt petition was argued on number of occasions and the respondents relied and continued to

persists upon their statement of return of money as it had been given in their statement in the compliance affidavit dated 09.10.2019. The said fact

was controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that in fact the statistics which was given by them in their statement of

having return the money was perse false because that money in fact has not been refunded. This was an apparent and deliberate act of perjury, by

making a wrong statement in the affidavit.

The aforesaid contention, stood further fortified by the respondent’s own stand, which they have taken in their affidavit, which was filed on

13.12.2020, wherein the respondent has annexed the drafts which was prepared as against those students for whom they had earlier pleaded that they

have returned the money and those drafts were shown to have been prepared only on 21.11.2020. The relevant paragraph of the affidavit filed on

13.12.2020 is quoted hereunder:-

“8. That when this mistake was realized by the deponent, they had prepared 6 drafts of each Rs. 10,000/-(building development fund) in name of

parents of 6 students and seeking kind permission of Hon’ble Court, so that the drafts could be submitted in Hon’ble court or as the

Hon’ble Court may pleased to direct. Parents of one student serial no. 21 Jayesh Batra s/o mr. Jai batra is not before Hon’ble Court but

deponent had prepared his draft also, so that orders of Hon’ble court be fully complied.

Details of students and drafts prepared are- Pavani Sharma D/o Siddhartha Sharma, DD No. 000110 dated 21.11.2020, Pragya Sharma S/o

Siddhartha Sharma, DD No. 000109 dated 21.11.2020, Parth Sharma S/o Siddhartha Sharma, DD No. 000108 dated 21.11.2020, Aradhya Gaur S/o

Rohit Gaur, DD No. 000111 dated 21.11.2020, Aarohi Gaur D/o Rahul Gaur, DD No. 000112 dated 21.11.2020, Jayesh Batra S/o Jai Batra, DD No.

000113 dated 21.11.2020. That the photocopy of Drafts prepared for these 6 students are herein marked as and annexed as Annexure No. 1 with

this response affidavit.â€​

This statement made by the respondent No. 1, of having prepared the drafts on 21.11.2020, as against the aforesaid 6 students itself amounts to be

an apparent admission of making a wrongful statement in the affidavit which was filed by him before this Court on 9.10.2019, because the actual

disbursement and the compliance is shown to have been made by the remittance of the amount through the drafts dated 21.11.2020. This amounts to

be an apparent and clear case of an admitted act of perjury of filing of false affidavit before the Court and even thereafter persisting with the said

false affidavit, while arguing the contempt petition and subsequent filing of an affidavit of showing issuance of drafts dated 21.11.2020; will amount to

be an admission of a fact of filing a false affidavit by the deponent of the affidavit i.e. respondent No. 1 herein.

In these circumstances, this Court has got no other option except to take a punitive action against the deponent for filing a false affidavit and

committing a deliberate act of perjury with an intention to mislead the Court.

In view of the aforesaid reasoning assigned above, I hereby direct the SHO, High Court, to take the deponent in custody and place him in custody

till the rising of the Court.

The Cheques dated 21.11.2020, the details of which are given hereunder:-

(i) Cheque No. 000108-249544106 drawn in favour of Mr. Siddhartha Sharma for an amount of Rs. 10,000/-.

(ii) Cheque No. 000109-249544106 drawn in favour of Mr. Siddhartha Sharma for an amount of Rs. 10,000/-.

(iii) Cheque No. 000110-249544106 drawn in favour of Mr. Siddhartha Sharma for an amount of Rs. 10,000/-.

(iv) Cheque No. 000112-249544106 drawn in favour of Mr. Rahul Gaur for an amount of Rs. 10,000/-

The Registry of this Court is directed to put these cheques in a sealed cover and in safe custody, to be remitted as soon as the learned counsel for

the petitioner approaches the Court for its acceptance.

Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed, subject to the above order of punishment.