A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) COMMITTEE of Management, Yagya Mandal Sanskrit Pathshala, Shiv Mandir, Sirkoni, Jaunpur through its Manager Janardan Prasad Singh (hereinafter called the Institution) filed this petition under Article 226, Constitution of India before this Court praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 22-2-1999 (Annexure-9 to the petitioner) and a writ of mandamus commending respondent No. 1 (Vice-Chancellor, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidhyala, Varanasi) to comply with the direction of this Court passed on 29-10-1997 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36497 of 1997 and to permit the students in the forthcoming examination of 1999 scheduled to be held in April/may, 1999 and certain other consequential relief. Respondent-University was granted time to file counter-affidavit vide order dated 19/04/1999 and case was directed to be listed on 30/04/1999. ( 2 ) ON 30/04/1999 counsels were unable to appear and prosecute case due to strike of their Clerks. However, on mention being made by learned Counsel for the petitioners, case was directed to be taken up in Chambers. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also stated that no counter-affidavit was served upon him by that date. Taking into account the pressing circumstance that the students would have otherwise irreparably suffered due to the fact that the case could not be heard at appropriate time, this Court passed an interim order dated 30/04/1999. All the facts, which compelled this Court to pass interim order, have already been indicated therein. ( 3 ) THE contesting respondents (respondents Nos. 1 and 2) have put in appearance. Parties have exchanged counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit. Counsel for the University also produced original record for perusal of the Court. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the Institution was initially affiliated to the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi (for short the University) as contemplated under U. P. State Universities Act, 1973. Brief facts, shorn off unnecessary details, are that the University issued a list containing names of institutions, which were disaffiliated (Annexure SA-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit); a copy of which has also been filed along with the counter-affidavit as Annexure CA-1. Said list has been sent by concerned authorities on 27-4-1983. This made the Institution aggrieved, but from the record it does not appear as to what was actually done by the petitioners to undo the said action taken by the University. Said list has been sent by concerned authorities on 27-4-1983. This made the Institution aggrieved, but from the record it does not appear as to what was actually done by the petitioners to undo the said action taken by the University. It appears that the Institution succeeded in submitting examination forms and deposited examination fee of certain students and on that basis these students were allowed to appear in University examination for the period held between 1983 to 1986. The records of the University indicate that during this period of 1983 to 1986 dispute arose regarding recognition being granted to the Committee of Management, which sought recognition from the University on the basis of election being held from time to time. The original record of the University also indicates that there was some dispute regarding payment of salary to the staff of the said institution. Director (HE) had made certain enquiry and some correspondence do exist in the University records. On its basis, enquiry was being made by the Directorate, Higher Education. Original record of the University also shows that the original file of the institution was not traceable, however, different noting maintained in the office of the University indicate that there has been some communication gap between the two sections of the University - Affiliation Section and Examination Section. At one stage Vice-Chancellor even directed for enquiry and asked for certain facts. Meanwhile petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 36497 of 1997 in this Court and Honble R. H. Zaidi, J. vide Judgment and Order dated 29-10-1997 passed the following order :-"under the facts and circumstances of the present case, this petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the respondent No. 1 to take decision regarding approval/recognition of the election of the office bearer and members of the Committee of Management held on 17-7-96 within a period of lone month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, after following the procedure prescribed under the law. " ( 5 ) A perusal of the said order shows that said writ petition related to the question of grant of recognition by the University to the Committee of Management of the Institution. In pursuance to the said order some contempt petition was also filed for compelling the University to take decision in the matter of grant of recognition to Committee of Management. In pursuance to the said order some contempt petition was also filed for compelling the University to take decision in the matter of grant of recognition to Committee of Management. ( 6 ) IN the said writ petition there was no dispute regarding affiliation or dis-affiliation of the Institution. Impugned order dated 22-2-1999 refers to the petitioners letter dated 28-10-1996 (a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-5) and perusal of the same shows that dispute was exclusively regarding recognition of Committee of Management of the Institution by the University. By means of impugned order, University had taken three grounds for not granting recognition to the Committee of Management of the institution. All the three grounds read together show that University denied to accord recognition to the management precisely on the ground that College was not affiliated to the University. ( 7 ) IT may be mentioned that this Court granted ad interim order on the basis of documents and averments referred in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the writ petition. In these paragraphs, petitioners have referred to Annexure-11 to the petition and filed a photocopy as well as typed copy of order dated 27-12-1996 but they are not identical portion encircled by read line-marked A at page 67 in photocopy does not find mention of crucial word nahin which has been omitted. It has been done purposely as otherwise in typed copy at page 66 of paper-book some blank space would have been left even if typist was not able to read the blurred portion in the photocopy. Respondents, in their counter-affidavit, denied correctness of the said order. Paragraph 21 of the petition has been denied vide paragraph 24 of their counter-affidavit. It is categorically asserted that Annexure-11 to the petition is a forged and fabricated document. Respondents have filed correct copy of the said order as Annexure-2 to their counter-affidavit. Court has compared Annexure-11 to the petition and Annexure CAII referred above with the original record of the University. There is no doubt that the copy of the order dated 27-12-1996 (filed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition) is not a correct copy. The irresistible inference is that the petitioner filed a forged and fabricated document. Discrepancy in Annexure-11 to the writ petition - as compared to the original record of Annexure-2 to the counter-affidavit has not been explained by the petitioner. The irresistible inference is that the petitioner filed a forged and fabricated document. Discrepancy in Annexure-11 to the writ petition - as compared to the original record of Annexure-2 to the counter-affidavit has not been explained by the petitioner. ( 8 ) CONTENTS of paragraph 24 of the counter-affidavit have been replied in paragraph 14 of the rejoinder-affidavit. Relevant portion of it reads :-"the Annexure-11 of the writ petition is true document and the Annexure-2 to the counter-affidavit is a forged document. " ( 9 ) THE said paragraph has been sworn on the basis of personal knowledge. No reliance can be placed on the said averments. It is evident that the petitioners deliberately made false averment in the rejoinder-affidavit. Learned Counsel for the petitioners tried to explain the discrepancy and submitted that the same were committed inadvertently. The submission is without force. The discrepancies are not at one place. Words have been omitted in typed copy and rather the word prapta was substituted by omitting the word rahit in the original order. Again the word nahin was omitted at the end which finds place in the original order. Not only this, photocopy of the order, filed by the petitioners was also filed by mentioning the word prapta instead of rahit and thereafter in the bottom word nahin was got omitted. When this discrepancy was pointed out, learned counsel for petitioner attempted to explain that it was due to blurring print occurring in the process of obtaining photocopy. Explanation does not stand in view of the deliberate omission and exclusion of words as indicated above. ( 10 ) PETITIONERS have certainly not approached this Court with clean hands and are guilty of filing forged and fabricated document which had direct bearing on the decision of the case. ( 11 ) THE above inference is further fortified from the circumstances that in the present petition an attempt has been made to mix two distinct issues; namely, question of recognition to the Committee of Management and the question of disaffiliation of the Institution. The two issues have no nexus with each other. Apparently, if Institution was not affiliated, question of granting recognition to the Committee of Management by the University did not arise at all. The two issues have no nexus with each other. Apparently, if Institution was not affiliated, question of granting recognition to the Committee of Management by the University did not arise at all. ( 12 ) ORIGINAL records of the University indicate that Vice-Chancellor had already passed orders for initiation of enquiry to fix accountability and responsibility of the persons in the University staff responsible for creating the mess and, negligently or deliberately, helped in getting alleged students of Petitioners Institution, which stood disaffiliated as early as in the year 1983, to appear in University Examinations. ( 13 ) IT may be further noted that the petitioners, being aware of the fact that the institution was not affiliated, it was not proper on their part to send forms, deposit fees etc. seemingly in a surreptitious manner and thereby manipulate its students to take up University examinations. Such a conduct cannot be allowed to be encashed by petitioners and take advantage of by pleading that University allowed its students to appear in examinations after 1983. ( 14 ) IN the counter-affidavit respondents have taken a stand that enquiry is being initiated. The matter pertains to the fate of future career of students and it is a matter of regret that University did not ensure completion of enquiry though considerable time has already elapsed. This Court has sanguine hope that respondents shall take immediate steps to ensure that a full-fledged and thorough requisite enquiry is held expeditiously and in any case in less than in one academic year from today. The respondent-University shall afford opportunity to all concerned including the petitioners and thereafter determine the question of affiliation. Erring officials may be dealt with stern action, as it will ensure that University officials do not indulge in bungling. ( 15 ) AS far as the present petition is concerned, this Court has no hesitation that it is liable to be dismissed summarily since petitioners are guilty of playing fraud and misleading the Court by deliberately filing forged and fabricated document which is a deliberate attempt of making misrepresentation. Perhaps have disentitled themselves from invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, Constitution of India as they have failed to approach the Court with clean hand. ( 16 ) REFERENCE may be made to following decisions :-i. AIR 1951 Alld. 746 (FB);ii 1996 (1) UPLBEC 580 ;iii. Perhaps have disentitled themselves from invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, Constitution of India as they have failed to approach the Court with clean hand. ( 16 ) REFERENCE may be made to following decisions :-i. AIR 1951 Alld. 746 (FB);ii 1996 (1) UPLBEC 580 ;iii. 1996 (3) SCC 332 : AIR 1996 SC 1188 ;iv. 1996 (9) SCC 534 : AIR 1996 SC 3409;v. 1999 All WC 100 (1) (SC) : 1998 AIR SCW 3812. ( 17 ) TENDENCY to file forged and fabricated and tampered documents and thereby attempting to obtain ex parte order and attempt to confuse issues by twisting facts or not disclosing full facts with clarity or mixing real issues with irrelevant issues (which are otherwise foreign to original issue in writ petition) cannot be ignored. Court deprecates such tendency and views it seriously. ( 18 ) IN the present case petitioner filed a copy of inspection report dated 11-9-98, (Annexure-10) given by Inspector, Sanskrit Pathshala, U. P. , Allahabad as provided under paras 53 and 54 of Chapter II of Education Code (The Educational Code of U. P.-1958 Revised Edition, Corrected up to 31/12/1962, printed at Allahabad by Superintendent, Printing and Stationary, U. P. (India) in 1963 ). Para 54 reads :"the Assistant Inspectors of Sanskrit Pathshala will inspect all the Sanskrit in their zones, recommend to the Inspector of Sanskrit Pathshala, Uttar Pradesh, cases of recognition building grant and library grants, write confidential reports of the head and assistant Pandits of Government Sanskrit Pathshalas and prepare the statistical returns of Sanskrit Pathshalas in their zones or transmission to the Inspector of Sanskrit Pathshalas. " ( 19 ) OBVIOUSLY U. P. State University Act, 1973, called Act-1973 had not commenced Section 5 (2), Section 37 (2) to (8), Section 40 and Chapter XI-A are relevant or present which show present institution, which claimed to be affiliated by Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyayala-is governed by Act, 1973. It will be appropriate that suitable provision be made to coordinate between Inspector, Sanskrit Pathshala, Director of Education, Deputy Director of Education, State Government and the University so that no institution, which is not affiliated is inspected and thus avoid confusion. ( 20 ) WRIT petition is dismissed with costs, which are quantified at Rs. 10,000. It will be appropriate that suitable provision be made to coordinate between Inspector, Sanskrit Pathshala, Director of Education, Deputy Director of Education, State Government and the University so that no institution, which is not affiliated is inspected and thus avoid confusion. ( 20 ) WRIT petition is dismissed with costs, which are quantified at Rs. 10,000. 00 (Rupees Ten Thousand only), petitioners shall deposit (costs awarded against them under this order) in the University within one month of passing of this order which is being passed in presence of learned Counsel for the petitioners. If petitioners fail to deposit the costs within time stipulated above, the University will not be obliged to consider any of the matter/issues pertaining to the said Institution, which shall be continued to be treated as unaffiliated Institution and amount of cost shall become recoverable by concerned District Magistrate as land revenue under law. ( 21 ) COPY of this order shall be sent by the Registry of this Court directly to the Chancellor, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi, Raj Bhawan, Lucknow, Secretary, Education Government of U. P. and Director of Education (H. E.), U. P. , Lucknow within one month from today for information to ensure suitable action against all erring officials, personnel, Management and Shri Kamta Prasad Shukla, Inspector, Sanskrit Pathshala, U. P. , Allahabad who gave report dated 11-9-1998, (Annexure-10 to writ petition) without verifying whether institution was affiliated or and thus trying to be instrumental to help the Management by strengthening the case indirectly. Petition dismissed.