Perjury and contempt notices for filing forged documents discharged upon unconditional apology and medical grounds.

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

The petitioner claimed he held a 30-year lease agreement dated 30.08.2006

Upon 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"

Consequently, the Court issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner for perjury and criminal contempt for misleading the Court

The 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

1. Whether the petitioner’s claim of a 30-year lease was based on a forged and manipulated document.

2. Whether proceedings for perjury and criminal contempt should be sustained against the petitioner for misleading the Court.

3. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition in light of the discovered interpolation and his medical condition.

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

While 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

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"

The Court initially determined that this act was a prima facie attempt to obtain relief through fraud, warranting contempt proceedings

However, in the final hearing, the Court evaluated the petitioner's second affidavit (IA No. 03 of 2026).

It noted that the petitioner was diagnosed with carcinoma of the buccal mucosa and had undergone invasive surgery

Balancing 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

The Court allowed the withdrawal application (IA No. 03 of 2026) and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly