JUDGMENT Syed Fatheyab Ali Meerza filed this Writ petition in 1985 for several reliefs including a declaration that the Murshidabad Estate (Management of Properties) and Miscellaneous Premises Act, 1980 is ultra vires and void. In paragraph 2 of the Writ petition the petitioner, inter alia, stated as follows :– "Your petitioner is and claims to (be) present Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad and Amir-ul-Omrah by virtue of Succession from Syed Hassan Ali Meerza, the last Nawab Nazim of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and the first Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad." According to the averment made in the petition the last Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad Waris Ali Meerza died in 1969 without leaving any male heir competent to succeed as the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad, the petitioner being the immediate next brother of the Late Nawab Bahadur Waris Ali Meerza is, therefore, the direct eldest lineal male descendant of Sir Syed Hassan Ali Meerza within the meaning of the Indenture dated 12th March, 1891 and by operation of the provisions of the Murshidabad Act, 1891 and on the basis of the custom of primogeniture had succeeded to the title of Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad and Amir-ul-Omrah and is also entitled to get payment of the annuity secured by the Act of 1891. His plea in the Writ petition is that he is protected by the Central Government's Act of 1891 and the State Legislature has no power to amend or repeal the Central Act. He further stated in the Writ petition that the Parliament has not enacted any legislation for the abolition of Nawab Bahadurship of Murshidabad guaranteed under the Act of 1891 and the Murshidabad Estates are protected properties and the petitioner is staying at 85, Park Street, Calcutta, on the strength of his own right. By an order made on 30th August. 1985 Mr. Justice Suhas Chandra Sen passed an order of status quo relating to Premises No. 85, Park Street so far the possession of the premises and tenancies of the said premises are concerned and restrained the petitioner from inducting any tenant or any other occupant in the said premises. 2. This writ application was assigned to this Court by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 14th September, 1989. On 8th February, 1990 Mr. 2. This writ application was assigned to this Court by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 14th September, 1989. On 8th February, 1990 Mr. S. C. Bose, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Union of India, handed over to the Court a xerox copy of a letter being No. 19/8/87-poll. III dated 18th December, 1989 addressed to the petitioner from Mr. D. N. Sharma, Director (Judl.), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government or India, informing the petitioner, inter alia, as under :– "3. In this case, the title and right to claim annuity last devolved on Shri Syed Waris Ali Meerza to the exclusion of his two brothers, Waris Ali Meerza branch being the eldest. The branches of the two brothers having been excluded, title and right of annuity must devolve for all time in future to the exclusion of those branches and the right can devolve only on the lineal male descendant of Shri Syed Waris Ali Meerza. The elder son of Shri Syed Waris Ali Meerza is a foreign citizen and. is ineligible for the title or the annuity." "4. In view of the aforesaid, I am directed to convey the decision of the Government of India that there is no question of the title or the property or other rights reverting to you." Immediately thereafter Mr. P. K. Das, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, handed over to this Court a xerox copy of a Notification being No. F-21093/756/89-DOJ(G) dated 2nd February, 1990 under the signature of one S. D. Sharma, Director (Judicial) of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Justice, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi, to the following effect :– "The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs is pleased to recognize Shri Syed Fatehyab Ali Meerza as Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad, with effect from the forenoon of 02.02.1990 until further orders." It appears from the contents of the Notification that it was sent to the General Manager, Government of India Press, Faridabad, with Hindi version and the copies to the Finance Secretary, Government of India ; the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal ; and the petitioner. On that date i. e. 8th February, 1990 I made an order that as some development of importance has taken place during the pendency of this writ application so liberty is given to the petitioner to file Supplementary Affidavit incorporating subsequent events. On that date i. e. 8th February, 1990 I made an order that as some development of importance has taken place during the pendency of this writ application so liberty is given to the petitioner to file Supplementary Affidavit incorporating subsequent events. Liberty was also given to file objections to the Union of India and the State Government. 3. On the next date of hearing i. e. 14th March, 1990 the Union of India through Mr. D. N. Sharma, Director (Judicial) attached to the Ministry of Home Affairs filed an Affidavit dated 28th February, 1990 duly authenticated under the seal of the Oath Commissioner approved by the Delhi High Court enclosing the xerox copy of the aforesaid letter dated 18th December, 1989 by which the Government of India intimated that there was no question of the title or the property or other rights reverting to the petitioner. Paragraph 3 of the said Affidavit is specifically related to the purported Notification and is quoted as follows :– "That during hearing on 8th February, 1990 the Writ petitioner produced a copy of purported Notification being No. F-21093/756/89-DOJ(G) dated 2nd February, 1990 wherefrom it is made to appear that the Writ petitioner has been adjudged as Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad with effect from the forenoon of 2nd February, 1990 until further orders. This Notification has not been issued by the Government of India. In accordance with the Rules for Allocation of Business this mailer has been dealt with and is being dealt with in the Department of Estates of the Ministry of Home Affairs and not in the Department of Justice which is a part of the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. This deponent denies the authenticity or genuineness of this Document. There is also no officer by the name of Shri S.D. Sharma with the designation of Director (Judl.) now or at the relevant date in the Ministry of Home Affairs who is purported to have signed the said document." Xerox copy of the purported Notification which was handed over to the learned Counsel for the Government of India on 8th February, 1990 was also annexed with this Affidavit. 4. 4. Thereafter in paragraph 4 of the said Affidavit it is stated as under :– "That the procedure followed by the Government of India in respect of approval to the recognition of Successor to the Political pensionholder is that no notification used to be issued and the decision used to be conveyed to the State Government." 5. Also on 14th March, 1990 the petitioner filed a Supplementary Affidavit duly affirmed by him on 23rd February, 1990 wherein he referred to the leave granted by this Court to file a Supplementary Affidavit regarding subsequent developments. He stated in the said Affidavit that since the death of Syed Waris Ali Meerza in 1969 the Government of India did not recognize anybody as the Nawab nor paid the annuity as laid down in the Indenture and as confirmed by the Murshidabad Act, 1891 ; the petitioner made series of representations to the authorities claiming that he should be recognized as the Nawab and paid the annuity as he is the senior-most male heir by the law of primogeniture and that the sons of the last Nawab were disentitled to inherit because of various reasons. But the authorities concerned neglected to grant recognition to anybody and the petitioner had to move a Writ petition being C. R. No. 10165(W) of 1981. The said Writ petition was disposed of by Mr. Justice S. C. Sen in 1987 and His Lordship was pleased to direct the Government of India to consider afresh the question of title and annuity after considering the representation of all interested parties within a certain date, and subsequently the date was extended till 31st December, 1988. By a Notice published in some newspapers on 10th May, 1988 the Government called upon the interested persons to file their claims regarding conferment of the title of the Nawab of Murshidabad and the petitioner submitted his claim on cogent and valid grounds. It is further stated in the said Affidavit that so far the petitioner is aware neither the sons of the late Nawab nor anybody else made any claim to the authorities concerned. Now the next two paragraphs of this Supplementary Affidavit of the petitioner are of vital importance which I quote as follows :– "9. It is further stated in the said Affidavit that so far the petitioner is aware neither the sons of the late Nawab nor anybody else made any claim to the authorities concerned. Now the next two paragraphs of this Supplementary Affidavit of the petitioner are of vital importance which I quote as follows :– "9. I say that the then Hon'ble Minister of Home Affairs was pleased to declare on the 1st of December, 1989 that I have been recognized as the Nawab of Murshidabad. A copy of the said declaration made by the said Hon'ble Minister is annexed hereto and marked with the letter "A". 10. I say that by a Notification dated 2nd February, 1990 bearing No. F-21093/756/89-DOJ(G), the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs recognized me as the Nawab of Murshidabad with effect from 2.2.90. A copy of the order issued by the Director (Judicial) announcing the decision is annexed hereto and marked with the letter "B"." The entire Affidavit of the petitioner including paragraphs 9 and, 10 has been affirmed as "true to my knowledge". 6. I have already quoted hereinbefore the text of the purported Notification dated 2nd February, 1990 and now I quote the wordings of the Certificate granted by Mr. Buta Singh to the petitioner which the petitioner has enclosed with his Affidavit :– "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Dated : December 1, 1989 This is to declare that Sri Syed Fatehyab Ali Meerza of 85, Park Street, Calcutta has been recognized as Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad (West Bengal) against his claim in connection with the announcement made on May 10, 1988 in this regard. Sd/- Buta Singh ( Buta Singh )." 7. The State of West Bengal filed an Affidavit-in-Reply duly affirmed on 6th March, 1990 to the said Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner. In the Affidavit-in-Reply the State Government stated that it preferred an appeal against the order of Mr. Justice S. C. Sen in C. R. No. 10165 (W) of 1981 and the said appeal is still pending. It is also stated in the said Reply that the Home Minister has no authority to make any declaration as the appeal is pending and the Murshidabad Act of 1891 stood repealed by the Murshidabad Estate (Management and Properties) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1980 which came into force in August, 1985. It is also stated in the said Reply that the Home Minister has no authority to make any declaration as the appeal is pending and the Murshidabad Act of 1891 stood repealed by the Murshidabad Estate (Management and Properties) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1980 which came into force in August, 1985. It is specifically stated in the said Reply that the purported Notification is not genuine and is a forged one. Xerox copies of some correspondence have been enclosed as annexures with the Affidavit-in-Reply. One is a communication dated 16th February, 1990 from Mr. K. C. Kankan, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, to Mr. S. M. Habibullah, the learned Advocate of the State of West Bengal, in connection with the instant writ application wherein the Joint Secretary, inter alia, stated that the Government of India have not issued any notification recognising Syed Fatehyab Ali Meerza as the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad and the alleged Notification dated 2nd February, 1990 which was filed by the Counsel of the petitioner in the High Court on 8th February, 1990 is not a genuine document. There is a letter dated 2nd February, 1990 (which is also the date of purported Notification) written by Mr. Dinesh Goswami, Minister of Steel & Mines and Law & Justice, India, New Delhi, to Shri Jyoti Basu, Chief Minister, West Bengal, relating to the question of abolition of the title of Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad, etc. and subsequent discussion between the said Union Law Minister and the Chief Minister on the subject. In the second paragraph of the said letter the Union Law Minister refers to the instant Writ petition and stated that Officers of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs have requested to brief the Senior Counsel, Shri Somendra Chandra Bose, who would be appearing on behalf of the Union of India in this matter. The significant portion of the letter is quoted as under :– "Incidentally, I may mention that as directed by the Calcutta High Court in its order dated 14th August, 1987 in the aforementioned case, the Government of India has passed the speaking order holding that Syed Fatehyab Ali Meerza can have no claim either to the title or the annuity or to any other property of the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad. This has been communicated by the Ministry of Home Affairs to Syed Fatehyab Ali Meerza on 18th December, 1989. This communication will be placed before the Calcutta High Court at the next hearing." Mr. Jyoti Basu forwarded this communication to his Minister-in-Charge Judicial. Also annexed with the affidavit is the copy of a letter from the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, dated 15th February, 1990 addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal intimating that no Notification dated 2nd February, 1990 as alleged has been issued by the Government of India. 8. With the filing of the purported Notification dated 2nd February, 1990 supported by affidavit before this Court and the denial by the Government of India on oath that no such Notification has been issued and challenging its genuineness or authenticity both by the Union of India and the State Government the situation took a serious turn. To ascertain and appreciate the position correctly I directed the petitioner Syed Fatehyab Ali Meerza to be present in the Court on 15th March, 1990. He appeared and said on oath before this Court in firm words that the Notification dated 2nd February, 1990 recognizing him as the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad is correct. But at the same time he said in words categorical that he has in possession only the xerox copy of the said Notification and he has received no direct communication from the Government of India recognizing him as the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad. He further stated that one Basudeo Narayan Singh is working for him for a few years and is his Tadbirkar and he attended to his work in Delhi and he handed over the xerox copy to him of the said Notification. Regarding the xerox copy of the Certificate of Mr. Buta Singh the petitioner said that it, too, was handed over to him by Basudeo Narayan Singh and he has no original of the said Certificate. When the petitioner appeared again before the Court on 19th March, 1990 he further stated that apart from Mr. Singh there are two other persons as his Tadbirkars, one is Syed Asghar Abbas Rizvi and another Prince Anjum Quder. He stated that Anjum Quder did many things for him and he was looking after the matter of Nawabship before the fall of the Congress Government in the Centre. He admitted that Mr. Singh there are two other persons as his Tadbirkars, one is Syed Asghar Abbas Rizvi and another Prince Anjum Quder. He stated that Anjum Quder did many things for him and he was looking after the matter of Nawabship before the fall of the Congress Government in the Centre. He admitted that Mr. Singh was not the main person but he was working with the aforesaid two persons. 9. On 15th March, 1990 the learned Counsel of the petitioner filed two documents in the Court : one is the xerox copy of the purported Notification of 2nd February, 1990 which contains the following endorsement :– "I certify this to be a true copy. Sd/- Basudeo Narayan Singh Dated 6.2.1990." Another is an Affidavit affirmed before a Notary Public, Calcutta, dated 26th February, 1990 wherein Mr. Singh stated that he is the agent, Tadbirkar and Manager of the petitioner "Nawab Syed Fatehyab Ali Meerza Bahadur of Murshidabad" and conducting and pursuing the succession case of the petitioner with the Government of India. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the said Affidavit are quoted as follows :– "3. That I say that Nawab Syed Fatehyab Ali Meerza Bahadur has been recognized as the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad on 2.2.1990 by the Home Secretary, Government of India. 4. That copy of a letter containing the order of the Government of India sent, for publication in the Gazette, was given to me by an official of the Home Ministry, Government of India. 5. That I gave that copy of letter signed by S. D. Sharma, Director (Judicial) Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to the learned Advocates of Nawab Syed Fatehyab Ali Meerza to be produced in the Calcutta High Court as and when necessary." All the five paragraphs of the said Affidavit have been affirmed as "true to my knowledge". The petitioner was directed to produce Basudeo Narayan Singh in the Court on 19th March, 1990. 10. On 19th March, 1990 Basudeo Narayan Singh made statement on oath before the Court. He said that for 6/7 years he is serving as the Tadbirkar of the petitioner and attend particularly his matter relating to the Nawabship at New Delhi. On 28th January, 1989 he met Mr. Buta Singh. 10. On 19th March, 1990 Basudeo Narayan Singh made statement on oath before the Court. He said that for 6/7 years he is serving as the Tadbirkar of the petitioner and attend particularly his matter relating to the Nawabship at New Delhi. On 28th January, 1989 he met Mr. Buta Singh. The Government made a public notice on 10th May, 1988 inviting claims to the Nawabship of Murshidabad and he said that he possessed the purported Notification of 2nd February, 1990. When asked by the Court whether he met Mr. Buta Singh personally when he was the Home Minister, he replied in the affirmative. Then Mr. Singh stated that on 29th November at 10.30 the conclusion ended and Mr. Bhardwaj (Union Minister of State for Law) signed before him (vide Q. No. 23). Then in answer to the Q. Nos. 24 and 25 as to what he meant that the papers were signed in his presence by the Cabinet Minister and the Minister of State for Law for appointment as Nawab, to this he replied that he was sitting by the side of the chamber which means in the other room. He further stated that he could produce the original of the purported Notification if given 15 days time. When questioned about the certificate of Mr. Buta Singh, he said that the original was lying with the man accompanying him and he named the man as Syed Asghar Abbas Rizvi, a Government employee in Delhi. He produced the xerox copy of an envelope which was Sent 'By Speed Post' to Syed Asghar Abbas Rizvi of C/o. Mr. Verma, Office of the Development Commissioner, Small Scale Industries, Ministry of Industry, 'A' Barracks, (behind Market), New Delhi-110001, by Prince Anjum Quder of Garden Reach, Calcutta, and further stated that it was through Prince Anjum Quder and Mr. Rizvi that he met Mr. Buta Singh seven times. He stated that Anjum Quder had been dealing with the Nawabship matter for more than 20 years. When asked by the Court who bore the expenses of Anjum Quder going to Delhi he said that he had no knowledge but at the same time he stated that the petitioner is very poor and his financial condition is almost negative. He stated that Anjum Quder had been dealing with the Nawabship matter for more than 20 years. When asked by the Court who bore the expenses of Anjum Quder going to Delhi he said that he had no knowledge but at the same time he stated that the petitioner is very poor and his financial condition is almost negative. When questioned about his endorsement on the body of the xerox copy of the purported Notification, he said that he did not intend to write but was told to write as such and as a layman he wrote those words. When questioned about the Affidavit affirmed by him he said that he was asked to do so and he did. He further stated that if reliance is made upon the said Affidavit then it must be treated as his Affidavit and what he had stated in the Affidavit would seem to be untrue. He said Anjum Quder and Mr. Rizvi were the senior Tadbirkars of the petitioner. 11. On 21st March, 1990 Basudeo Narayan Singh produced before the Court the original of a letter dated 13th October, 1989 written by A. A. Rizvi of 9-C, Navkala Apartments, Patparganj, New Delhi–110092, to H. H. Prince Anjum Quader, Calcutta, in which Rizvi writes to Anjum Quder that “now there are a lot of change in H. M.’s momd. I think this is the high time for murshidabad issue” and thereafter he writes “If, it is possible please bring me my ‘Holy book’ from Gabboo Saheb”. The words ‘Holy book’ was written above the original word completely polluting the original word with ink. Mr. Singh failed to give any satisfactory answer as to what was they original word which was polluted with ink and what is meant by the ‘Holy book’ (afterwards it transpired that Gabboo Saheb is the nickname of the petitioner). Mr. Singh produced before the Court a Notice published in the “Amrita Bazar Patrika” on 10th May, 1988 inviting claims or interests in the matter of succession to the title of and annuity payable to Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad. When asked whether as a Tadbirkar he has any document to show as to what claim the petitioner made to the Government of India and what communication he did receive from the Government, Mr. When asked whether as a Tadbirkar he has any document to show as to what claim the petitioner made to the Government of India and what communication he did receive from the Government, Mr. Singh placed before the Court the Xerox copy of Notes dated 10th April, 1989 on Murshidabad Succession Case on the letter-head of Prince Anjum Quder wherein on page 7 of the Notes Anjum Quder was described as “Agent & Authorised Representative of Nawab Syed Fatheyab Ali Meerza”. Thereafter he produced an unsigned copy of a Memorandum which according to him was submitted to the Government by the petitioner. When the Court asked that the Government of India by an Affidavit stated that no Notification dated 2nd February, 1990 recognizing the petitioner as Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad had been issued, Mr. Singh said that he received the Xerox copy of the Notification from Mr. Rizvi and he has not received this Notification directly. When referring to his endorsement on a Xerox copy of the purported Notification the Court asked whether he knew the implication of what he was writing, he replied “I have erred and I have made a mistake” (Q. No. 110). When the Court put it to him that the purported Notification placed by he petitioner was vague and fabricated document and a forged one on the basis of the Affidavit filed by the Government of India, Mr. Singh’s reply was funny and he said that “till date I cannot accept that it is a forge document and I still have doubt about the correctness of the statements in the Affidavit filed by the Government of India” (Q. No. 111). In answer to Q. No. 118 Mr. Singh said that “I have only two persons before me who had instructed to do some work specially to go and collect the letter or Notification from Delhi”. Then the following questions and answers followed between the Court and Mr. Singh which are reproduced hereunder :– Q. No. 119. You mean Mr. Rizvi and Mr. Anjum Quder ?/Yes. Q. No. 120. And everything was done through them ?/Yes. Q. No. 121. And you were only in between ?/Yes. 12. Then the following questions and answers followed between the Court and Mr. Singh which are reproduced hereunder :– Q. No. 119. You mean Mr. Rizvi and Mr. Anjum Quder ?/Yes. Q. No. 120. And everything was done through them ?/Yes. Q. No. 121. And you were only in between ?/Yes. 12. The Court had earlier directed the petitioner to produce Prince Anjum Quder, one of his Tadbirkar, on 21st March, 1990 but on that date he was not present and the matter adjourned till 26th March, 1990 directing the petitioner to positively produce him on that date. Prince Anjum Quder appeared through his learned Counsel Mr. Harasit Ghosh on 23rd March, 1990 and the learned Counsel submitted that his client would appear before the Court as directed on 26th March, 1990. 13. On 26th March, 1990 Mr. Anjum Quder was present in the Court with his Senior Counsel Mr. Sankardas Banerjee and made statement on oath. He said that his full name is Anjum Quder Raushan Ali Meerza and he is a political pension-holder of Rs. 75/- per month. He said that he took the petitioner to New Delhi for introducing to the Union Home Minister Mr. Buta Singh and the Union Minister of State for Law Mr. Bhardwaj and a Memorandum was filed before the Home Minister which was recommended by him (Mr. Quder). In this connection he produced before the Court some letters form different persons of high position relating to the question of petitioner’s Nawabship. He told the Court that from the 3rd week of November, 1989 when the Congress lost and the new Government was to come he retired from helping the petitioner. Mr. Anjum Quder strongly objected to the word ‘Tadbirkar’ but admitted more than once that he was pursuing the case of the petitioner in the succession matter to the Nawabship of Murshidabad till the fall of the Congress in Centre in November, 1989. He said that when the purported Notification of 2nd February, 1990 was brought by Mr. Singh and shown to the petitioner for the first time he also reached the house of the petitioner and found all of them including the younger brother of the petitioner ‘excited’ at the thought of becoming ‘Nawab’. At that time Mr. Singh told the petitioner in Hindi that what Anjum Quder could not achieve he had achieved. Singh and shown to the petitioner for the first time he also reached the house of the petitioner and found all of them including the younger brother of the petitioner ‘excited’ at the thought of becoming ‘Nawab’. At that time Mr. Singh told the petitioner in Hindi that what Anjum Quder could not achieve he had achieved. He further said that the home Secretary is nobody to recognize, the recognition should be by the President and advised the petitioner that purported Notification is doubtful and advised the petitioner to ask Mr. Singh to affirm an affidavit. Thereafter according to Anjum Quder he met Rizvi and Rizvi said to him that a ‘joke’ was played on. Anjum Quder said that he advised the petitioner not to use this document in the Court because the document is bad and he would be in serious trouble. When in was put to him that according to Mr. Singh both he and Rizvi were the main persons working for the petitioner’s succession and they instructed him to do work specially to go and collect the letter or notification from Delhi (as appears from Q. Nos. 120 and 121 of Mr. Singh’s deposition), Mr. Anjum Quder relied in the negative and said that according to him the petitioner did not say so. When the Court asked Mr. Quder that the petitioner and Mr. Singh insisted upon the genuineness of the purposed Notification dated 2nd February, 1990 and Mr. Singh went to the extent of doubting the Affidavit of the Government of India, Mr. Anjum Quder described it as wishful thinking on the part of both (Q. No. 16A). Mr. Quder also disassociated himself completely with the Certificate granted to the petitioner by Mr. Buta Singh. Mr. Quder further said that there was no pecuniary advantage and he was helping a friend. He also said that when Mr. Singh brought the Certificate of Mr. Buta Singh to the petitioner he advised the petitioner to have it confirmed from Mr. Buta Singh and the petitioner sent his close relatives to Delhi and they met Mr. Buta Singh and Mr. Buta Singh confirmed that he had issued the certificate and the petitioner could not say who were those person. When the Court referred to the letter of Mr. Buta Singh and the petitioner sent his close relatives to Delhi and they met Mr. Buta Singh and Mr. Buta Singh confirmed that he had issued the certificate and the petitioner could not say who were those person. When the Court referred to the letter of Mr. Rizvi dated 13th October, 1989 to Prince Anjum Quder as to the meaning of the lot of change in H. M. and also high time for Murshidabad issue, Mr. Quder explained that during the Ram Janambhumi-Babari Masjid dispute Mr. Buta Singh had expected him to take different stand and he took another stand and as such he was angry with him. Thereafter he change and that reference is made in the letter. Regarding the ‘Holy book’ Mr. Anjum Quder specifically stated that it means “Rewa and Rizvi wanted a reward (Q. No. 31). When the Court asked that the ‘Holy book’ which means “reward” was to be processed through him to Rizvi, the answer was that Rizvi asked him for that and to the further questioned of the Court that financial gain was behind this play, the answer was ‘Yes’ (Q. Nos. 35 and 36). He admitted that after the Government’s letter dated 18th December, 1989 the Notification could not be genuine and only a mad man would forge (Q. Nos. 41 and 42). But he admitted that he was one of the persons who was actively participating in recommending the petitioner for the Nawabship and pursuing his Succession Case on behalf of the petitioner up to a certain stage. He also told in words categorical that he is fully aware about the consequences of such a ‘joke’ as was done with the petitioner. 14. I have discussed only some of the salient features of the statements made on oath by the petitioner Syed Fatehyab Ali Meerza, Basudeo Narayan Singh and Mr. Anjum Quder and did not discuss the entire statements of those three persons which are preserved in the record. All the questions were put to those three persons by the Court and no Counsel did put any question to anyone of them. 15. Anjum Quder and did not discuss the entire statements of those three persons which are preserved in the record. All the questions were put to those three persons by the Court and no Counsel did put any question to anyone of them. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the dramatic way the xerox copy of the purported Notification dated 2nd February, 1990 was placed before this Court, I am firmly of the view that an abortive criminal attempt was made by the petitioner Syed Fatehyab Ali Meerza to play fraud upon the Court in getting relief in the Writ petition which was in the process of hearing. The obvious purpose of the petitioner in producing the copy of fake Notification was to establish his claim as stated in paragraph 2 of the Writ petition and quoted by me hereinbefore and on the basis of the said Notification to strengthen his other statements made in the Writ petition which also I have already referred to. Certainly, if the Court would have taken the purported Notification as genuine the Court might have swelled in favour of the petitioner in granting relief to him. Thanks to the timely interference of the Government of India and the Government of West Bengal that the purported Notification was delected in time as forged and fabricated and the mischief was nipped in the bud. 16. From the discussion made hereinbefore a vicious circle of four characters emerged out who have contributed actively in their respective spheres towards the procurement of the purported Notification and the Certificate of Mr. Buta Singh when he was Union Home Minister. These characters are as follows :– (1) Syed Fatehyeb Ali Meerza, son of the late Wasif Ali Meerza of 85, Park Street, Calcutta–700016 (Writ petitioner) ; (2) Basudeo Narayan Singh, son of the late Jagat Narayan Singh of 7, Sailendhra Road, Lilluah, Howrah, West Bengal ; and permanently of Village Gunjapel, P. O. & P. S. Ecma, Dist. Chapra, Bihar ; (3) Prince Anjum Quder (full name : Anjum Quder Rawshan Ali Meerza) President, All India Shia Conference, Lucknow, of King of Oudh's Mausoleum, P-34, Garden Reach Road, Calcutta–700024 ; and (4) Syed Asghar Abbas Rizvi, C/o. Mr. Verma, Office of the Development Commissioner, Small Scale Industries, Ministry of Industry, 'A' Barraks (behind Market), Janpath, New Delhi–110001, and also of 9-C, Navkala Apartments, Pathparganj, New Delhi–110092. Verma, Office of the Development Commissioner, Small Scale Industries, Ministry of Industry, 'A' Barraks (behind Market), Janpath, New Delhi–110001, and also of 9-C, Navkala Apartments, Pathparganj, New Delhi–110092. None of the above noted persons can deny that they have something to do with forged Notification and the Certificate of Mr. Buta Singh at one stage or the other. The statements made by all the three persons who appeared before the Court at times were contradictory and they were shaky as well. Mere denial by Anjuin Quder will not automatically absolve him from being an active member of the vicious ring. One thing emerged out crystal clear from one of the documents referred to hereinbefore i. e. the letter of Delhi based Mr. Rizvi of 13th October, 1989 that the code words "Holy book" meant 'reward' which points to the fact that money played a vital role in the entire drama of forging and fabricating the Notification and the Certificate and placing the same before the Court with criminal intention to mislead the Court. The very purpose of the petitioner in this act was to have the Nawab Bahadurship of Murshidabad back with all its annuities. It is of vital importance why Rizvi of Delhi asked the 'Holy book' from Mr. Anjum Quder which according to Mr. Quder means 'reward' and according to his own answer in affirmative to Q. No. 36 the financial gain was behind this play. One thing must be borne in mind that Mr. Anjum Quder was the "Agent & Authorised Representative of Nawab Syed Fatehyab Ali Meerza" and as such he was one of the characters of the play. Even if it is accepted that Mr. Anjum Quder acted on behalf of the petitioner in the matter of succession of Nawabship till the defeat of the Congress in the last General Election in November, 1989, still it appears that even after November, 1989 he was in contact with Mr. Rizvi because when the forged Notification dated 2nd February, 1990 was shown to Mr. Quder he enquired about it from Mr. Rizvi who described it as a 'joke'. Rizvi because when the forged Notification dated 2nd February, 1990 was shown to Mr. Quder he enquired about it from Mr. Rizvi who described it as a 'joke'. So the statements of all those who appeared before this Court cannot be taken on face value and require a thorough probe to come to a definite conclusion and spot out the persons who formed a link to make out a forged document of the Government of India with ulterior and mala fide motive to deceive not only the Calcutta High Court in this particular Writ petition but might be to many others. The audacity of the petitioner knew no bound that where he was producing before the Court with much fanfare the so called Notification of 2nd February, 1990 of the Government of India, on that very date (i. e. 2nd February, 1990), Mr. Dinesh Goswami, Union Minister of Steel and Mines & Law and Justice, wrote to Mr. Jyoti Basu, Chief Minister of West Bengal, in words categorical that the Government of India has passed a speaking order holding that Syed Fatehyab Ali Meerza can have no claim either to the title or the annuity or to any other property of the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad and that the said decision has been communicated by the Ministry of Home Affair to Syed Fatehyab Ali Meerza on 18th December, 1989. It is, therefore, imperative upon this Court to pass such order so that the person or persons who have committed this act of forging and fabricating a document of the Government of India must be brought to book and be sternly dealt with. 17. In that, view of the matter, I direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate thoroughly in the light of this order the persons who are involved to forge a Notification bearing No. F-21093/756/89-DOJ(G) dated 2nd February, 1990 purported to have been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. Department of Justice, North Block, New Delhi, under the signature of one S. D. Sharma, Director (Judicial), as well as those who abated in the commission of this act. The CBI should also investigate whether any official or employee of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs was involved in this affair. One of the persons named in this connection, Mr. Syed Asghar Abbas Rizvi, is based in New Delhi and also Mr. The CBI should also investigate whether any official or employee of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs was involved in this affair. One of the persons named in this connection, Mr. Syed Asghar Abbas Rizvi, is based in New Delhi and also Mr. Verma through whom Anjum Quder is in correspondence with Rizvi. All the information regarding the development in the Succession Case of Nawab Bahadurship of Murshidabad shall be available from the Department of Estates of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. The CBI is further directed to enquire from Mr. Buta Singh, former Union Home Minister, whether he did issue any Certificate dated Ist December, 1989 to the petitioner Syed Fatehyab Ali Meerza that he had been recognized as the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad. The CBI is directed to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 4 (four) months from the date of the communication of this order. 18. On completion of investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation shall take immediate steps to initiate criminal proceedings in appropriate forum in accordance with law against the person or persons involved in the racket of forging and fabricating the said Notification and the said Certificate. 19. The petitioner as well as the Union of India and the State of West Bengal, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, are directed to fully co-operate with the CBI in the investigation. 20. The Registrar, Appellate Side, High Court, is directed to forward to the Central Bureau of Investigation the following documents and papers :– (a) Copy of the full text of this order duly authenticated by the Registrar ; (b) Copies of the statements made on oath by (i) Syed Fatehyab Ali Meerza, (ii) Basudeo Narayan Singh, and (iii) Anjum Quder ; (c) Xerox copy of the purported Notification dated 2nd February, 1990 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India ; as well as the one with the endorsement of Basudeo Narayan Singh ; (d) Xerox copy of the Certificate dated 1st December, 1989 issued by Mr. Buta Singh, the Union Home Minister ; (e) Xerox copy of Affidavit dated 26th February, 1990 affirmed by Basudeo Narayan Singh before the Notary Public, Calcutta ; (f) Xerox copy of the front side of the Envelope addressed to Syed Asghar Abbas Rizvi from Prince Anjum Quder ; (g) Xerox copy of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India's letter dated 18th December, 1989 addressed to the petitioner Syed Fatehyab Ali Meerza ; (h) Xerox copy of the front side of the Envelope addressed to Prince Anjum Quder from A. A. Rizvi marked as "Urgent/Private"; (i) Xerox copy of the letter dated 13th October, 1989 from A. A. Rizvi to H. H. Prince Anjum Quder, Calcutta ; (j) Xerox copy of Murshidabad Succession Case Notes dated 10.4.89 (wherein Mr. Quder is described as Agent and Authorised Representative of Nawab Syed Fatehyab Ali Meerza) ; (k) Xerox copy of the Ministry, Home Affairs, Government of India's letter dated 16th February, 1990 from Mr. K. C. Kankan, Joint Secretary, Government of India, to Mr. S. A. M. Habibullah, learned Advocate of the State of West Bengal ; (l) Xerox copy of the Union Minister of Steel & Mines and Law & Justice's letter dated 2nd February, 1990 written 10 Mr. Jyoti Basu, Chief Minister of West Bengal ; and (m) Xerox copy of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India's letter dated 15th February, 1990 written to Shri T. C. Dutt, Chief Secretary of West Bengal by Mr. K. C. Kankan, Joint Secretary, Government of India. 21. Extra copies of some of the items mentioned above are in the record of this case which be banded over to the CBI, and others be xeroxed under the supervision of a competent official of the Registrar (A. S.) and such official must be accompanied by a security guard to be provided by the Officer-in-Charge of the High Court Police if the record is required to be taken out of the High Court premises for the above purpose. 22. Liberty is given to the CBI to obtain copies of any further documents or papers which may be required during the course of investigation with the permission of the Court. 23. This matter is treated as heard-in-part and adjourned six weeks hence for the present. 24. 22. Liberty is given to the CBI to obtain copies of any further documents or papers which may be required during the course of investigation with the permission of the Court. 23. This matter is treated as heard-in-part and adjourned six weeks hence for the present. 24. The record of this Writ petition shall remain in the custody of the Registrar, Appellate Side, High Court, till the papers are handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation, and thereafter in safe custody. 25 Mr. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, prays for stay of operation of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer is refused. 26. The petitioner through his learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Sankardas Banerjee, has filed today an application that the Supplementary Affidavit by which he filed the xerox copy of the Government of India's Notification dated 2nd February, 1990 with all its annexures be treated as withdrawn and the inquiry be dropped. In the said affidavit points relating to the xerox copy of a forged document have also been raised. The petitioner has also tendered unqualified apology. I want to make it clear that as I have referred the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation for proper investigation, therefore, at this stage the question of withdrawal of the said Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner does not arise. The petitioner is not the only person involved in this matter but there appears to be a coterie of persons involved. This is a matter of grave importance as a document of the Government of India has been forged by whatever means and a xerox copy of the same was placed before the Court for consideration in connection with a writ application and that too in support of the contentions of the Writ petitioner. 27. As such, I refuse to accept the apology tendered by the petitioner. The application for withdrawal of the Supplementary Affidavit and dropping the inquiry is rejected. There will be no order as to costs. 28. The Registrar (A. S.) is directed to seen that if certified copy of the order is applied for, the same be given expeditiously but only after keeping in a separate file the copies of the order, documents and papers to be handed over to the CBI, otherwise the record must not be parted with. 28. The Registrar (A. S.) is directed to seen that if certified copy of the order is applied for, the same be given expeditiously but only after keeping in a separate file the copies of the order, documents and papers to be handed over to the CBI, otherwise the record must not be parted with. Even then a vigilence must be kept on the record. The Registrar (A. S.) is further directed to supply duly authenticated copies of this order to the Union of India and State of West Bengal only, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, free of charges. The copies of the statements made on oath by the petitioner Syed Fatehyab Ali Meerza, Basudeo Narayan Singh and Anjum Quder be supplied free of charges to the aforesaid Respondents and also to the petitioner, if applied for (extra copies are in the record).