01Facts
The petitioner challenged a tender notice dated 28.01.2026 issued by the Uttarakhand State Cooperative Federation Ltd. regarding Godown No. ICF B-5026, seeking regularization of his lease
¶ 1The petitioner claimed he held a 30-year lease agreement dated 30.08.2006
¶ 2Upon examination of the original lease deed produced by the respondent, the Court found that the lease was actually for a period of only three years, and the document filed by the petitioner was "interpolated" and "fake"
¶ 9-10Consequently, the Court issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner for perjury and criminal contempt for misleading the Court
¶ 12The petitioner initially filed a withdrawal application with a conditional apology, which was later replaced by a second application (IA No. 03 of 2026) offering an unconditional apology and disclosing that the petitioner suffers from oral cancer
¶ 4-702Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner’s claim of a 30-year lease was based on a forged and manipulated document.
¶ 9ii.2. Whether proceedings for perjury and criminal contempt should be sustained against the petitioner for misleading the Court.
¶ 11-12iii.3. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition in light of the discovered interpolation and his medical condition.
¶ 4-903Law Applied
The Court applied the fundamental principle that a party seeking relief under writ jurisdiction must come with clean hands; filing fake or manipulated documents constitutes perjury and interference in the course of administration of justice
¶ 11While the Court possesses the power to initiate criminal contempt and perjury proceedings for such misconduct, it may exercise judicial discretion to take a "lenient view" and discharge such notices if an unconditional apology is tendered and significant mitigating circumstances, such as a life-threatening medical condition, are present
¶ 7-804Reasoning
The Court compared the petitioner’s submitted lease deed with the original produced by the Respondent No. 1 and found clear evidence of manipulation in Clause 1 and Clause 4, where "3 years" was altered to "30 years"
¶ 8-10The Court initially determined that this act was a prima facie attempt to obtain relief through fraud, warranting contempt proceedings
¶ 11However, in the final hearing, the Court evaluated the petitioner's second affidavit (IA No. 03 of 2026).
¶ 7It noted that the petitioner was diagnosed with carcinoma of the buccal mucosa and had undergone invasive surgery
¶ 7Balancing the gravity of the misconduct against the petitioner’s terminal illness and his eventual unconditional apology, the Court opted for a lenient approach rather than pursuing criminal prosecution
¶ 805Holding
The Court discharged the notice for perjury and criminal contempt, taking a lenient view of the petitioner’s medical condition
¶ 8The Court allowed the withdrawal application (IA No. 03 of 2026) and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn
¶ 9-10All pending applications were disposed of accordingly
¶ 11Original Court PDF
YOGESH PRASADvsUTTARAKHAND STATE COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
