J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner No. 1 - Patel kantibhai Hargovindbhai alongwith two other petitioners filed this petition invoking extraordinary, plenary, discretionary, equitable and constitutional writ remedy under Article 226 of the constitution of India seeking direction to the respondent authorities to issue notification u/s. 48 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 (Act) and other consequential reliefs. On 24/5/2001 on behalf of the petitioners one Bhupendra Bhagwanbhai patel filed the affidavit stating that he is the power of attorney holder, of the petitioners and he is conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent person to depose. Affidavit is, also, sworn before a Notary on 24/5/2001, which is, below the Writ petition. The petition is signed by the learned advocate mr. Bharat S. Patel on the same day for the petitioners. ( 2 ) WHEN this matter came up for admission on 25/5/2001 and since it was filed during the period of vacation, the learned Vacation Judge was pleased to pass the following order"notice returnable on 13/6/2001. In the meantime there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of para. 8 (C) 0-5. is permitted. " ( 3 ) ON the next date, after reopening of the summer vacation, this petition came up for further hearing before regular Division bench like before us. In course of the hearing of the petition, under instructions from the officer concerned, who was present in the Court, the Ld. A. G. P. Mr. Patel drew the attention of the Court that the so called original petitioner No. 1 - patel Kantibhai Hargovindbhai was already dead. It was stated that he died, on 14/10/2000, and accardingly a public intimation for after death ceremony to be performed an 18/10/2000 came to be published in daily Gujarati newspaper sandesh, Vadodara edition dated 16/10/ 2000, which was placed on record. That is the reason why the Ld. Advocate Mr. Patel appearing for the petitioners was requested to verify, ascertain and state before the Court about the said plea. The ld. Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Patel after consultation with the power of attorney holder, who was present in the court,, declared at the bar before us that the petitioner No. 1 had already died and the power of attorney holder one Mr. Bhupendra Bhagwanbhai Patel knew about the factum of death of petitioner No. 1. The ld. Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Patel after consultation with the power of attorney holder, who was present in the court,, declared at the bar before us that the petitioner No. 1 had already died and the power of attorney holder one Mr. Bhupendra Bhagwanbhai Patel knew about the factum of death of petitioner No. 1. He further submitted that the power of attorney holder did not think it proper to disclose. He also further stated that the power of attorney holder did not think it proper even to disclose it to his advocate. The petitioner No. 2 was in the United states at the relevant time and the petition was filed. The copy of the power of attorney was, therefore, directed to be produced in the Courts proceedings, which indicated that it was executed by petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 on 27/7/1999 before the Executive magistrate in Baroda in Gujarat. Despite that the Ld. Advocate Mr. Patel for the petitioners desired shor adjournment to verify further particulars, reluctantly therefore adjournment was granted. We have passed a detailed order in this connection highlighting as to what had transpired in the Court on 13-6-2001. By virture of our order dated 13-6-2001, the matter was posted on 15-6-2001. ( 4 ) WHEN the matter was taken up on 15/6/2001, Ld. Advocate Mr. B. S. Patel for the petitioners had submitted that the petitioner No. I had, already, expired since long and power of attorney holder did not think it proper to inform the Court about the death though he has signed the petition as well as affidavit on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 who was a dead person. It was also submitted that the copy of the plaint of the Regular Civil Suit No. 85 of 1999 and a xerox copy of the first page of passport and relevant endorsement of Visa and again the time was sought for further instructions to which we relunctantly again granted and the matter came to be adjourned to 18/7/2001. We passed again the order on 15/6/2001 about the aforesaid request and adjourned the matter. ( 5 ) AGAIN on 13/7/2001 the matter was taken up and at that time Ld. Advocate mr. We passed again the order on 15/6/2001 about the aforesaid request and adjourned the matter. ( 5 ) AGAIN on 13/7/2001 the matter was taken up and at that time Ld. Advocate mr. Patel for the petitioners stated that the power of attorney holder is interested to file an affidavit showing the circumstances which led to his signing and verification in this petition, almost after the conclusion of the arguments on merits. The Ld. AGP, also, desired to place on record the pressure tactics employed by the petitioners before the Authority in relation to acquisition of the land in question. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the suit was filed for the same cause of action and for the same relief prior to the filing of the petition, which admittedly came to be withdrawn. It was stated before us that interim relief in the suit was not granted: since ad-interim relief had been obtained by filing the petition during the vacation before the Ld. Vacation Judge and after aforesaid aspect came into the light, after hearing both the parties, the ad-interim relief came to be vacated by us on 26/7/ 2001, which was granted on 20/5/2001. Detailed order in this behalf was also recorded by us on 18/7/2001. ( 7 ) AGAIN affidavit of the power of attorney holder one Bhupendra bhagwanbhai Patel dated 6/8/2001 came to be filed, probably it is filed for the purpose of explanation and clarification. ( 8 ) IN para, 2 of the said affidavit, power of attorney holder has again confirmed and affirmed that he knew that patel Kantibhai Hargovindbhai - petitioner no. 1 on whose behalf petition was filed alongwith two other petitioners and affidavit was filed as power of attorney holder, had expired on 14/10/2000. However, his explanation is that he did not know that he was required to inform to his advocate and, therefore, he did not inform him, It is further noticed from this para, that he was under impression that he had the power of attorney of deceased kantibhai Hargovindbhai Patel and, therefore, he signed as power of attorney holder. No doubt he has stated that it was done with bonafide mistake. No doubt he has stated that it was done with bonafide mistake. ( 9 ) AFTER having taken into consideration the aforesaid facts, which are no longer in controversy, it becomes evident and explicit that power of attorney holder Bhupendra Bhagwanbhai Patel with knowledge had signed on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 - deceased Kantibhai hargovindbhai Patel and had filed the affidavit. It is a settled proposition of law that the power of attorney granted to a person would cease to be operative from the very moment the granter has died, It is, really, unfortunate that in proceedings before the Court the tendency of forgery and filing false affidavit in the name of dead person and that too by power of attorney holder is increasing, which is undoubtedly a very undesirable unhealthy syndrome for the judicial system. Since we propose to pass order directing the registrar of this Court to launch the prosecution, we desist ourselves from making further remarks and observations so as to see that the vision of the Court which is ultimately going to try the criminal case may, not unnecessarily influenced or colored. Bearing in mind and with great restraint, but dutifully we prima-facie find that there is a disclosure of an offence punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, keeping in mind the statutory mandate of section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code, we hereby direct the Registrar or his authorized officer of this Court to launch the prosecution by filing a criminal complaint in the Court of competent magistrate and report to us expeditiously on or before 10/09/2001. He is further directed to keep the Court posted about the subsequent proceedings that may be taken up before the competent Criminal Court. ( 10 ) THE Ld. Advocate Mr. Pushpadat vyas appearing for Ld. Advocate Mr. B. S. Patel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this petition. The Ld. Government Pleader has no objection for withdrawal, but has insisted for exemplary costs. Ld. Govt. Pleader has also submitted that there is a cause for taking action as criminal contempt has been committed by filing false affidavit in the proceedings of this Court knowingly. Advocate Mr. B. S. Patel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this petition. The Ld. Government Pleader has no objection for withdrawal, but has insisted for exemplary costs. Ld. Govt. Pleader has also submitted that there is a cause for taking action as criminal contempt has been committed by filing false affidavit in the proceedings of this Court knowingly. ( 11 ) WE may mention that in the light of the facts and circumstances, we have already directed the Registrar or his nominee to file criminal complaint u/s. 193 of the Indian Penal Code, bearing in mind the provision of Section 195 of the Criminal procedure Code. ( 12 ) IN so far as the permission to withdraw this Petition is concerned, we are inclined to grant it. Therefore permisson is granted to withdraw the petition. However, in view of the facts noticed by us and the manner and mode in which prima-facie process of Court has been abused, we deem it necessary to impose cost while granting permission to withdraw, which is quantified at Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only]. Mr. Bhupendra bhagwanbhai Patel shall deposit an amount of Rs. 5,000/- before the Registry of this Court on or before 10/09/2001, failing which the Registry will bring this thing to our notice so as to pass further orders, since the other contention about taking action for criminal contempt is yet not finalised. Matter shall stand disposed of as withdrawn. Notice shall stand discharged. .