Judgment 1. On 31st January, 2002 the Court had recorded that this Court for its own protection must consider the matter in appeal. 2. On that day it had been pointed out by the appellant through its counsel Dr. Sadanand Jha Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur that there has been a glaring concealment of facts in the writ petition and this matter needs to be taken note of by the Court for its own protection regard being had to the fact that writ jurisdiction of the Court must remain clean and pure. 3. Court attention was drawn to paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit reproduced below :- "That the statement made in para 1 of the writ application is by way of prayer before this Hon ble Court and as such it needs no comment by the deponent. However it is stated that for the same cause of action and relief the petitioner and others has filed a Title Suit No. 9 of 1999 in the Court of 2nd Munsif Sasaram and the same is pending. The petitioner has further filed an injunction petition which was heard and rejected on 22-9-99. Against the order dated 22-9-99 the petitioner has filed a Misc. Appeal No. 52/99 in the Court of District Judge Rohtas (Sasaram) and the same was also rejected vide order dated 4-12-99." 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant pointed out to the Court that if the writ petitions were to be examined it conceals these facts. It was contended that these facts were within the knowledge of the petitioners that they had participated in a judicial proceeding which was brought as a suit by no other persons than by them. Whatever may be the ground on which the suit may have been rejected the petitioners should have filed an appeal before the District Judge, Rohtas (Sasaram). It was indicated to the Court that the tenor of the proceedings changes and if these facts would have been mentioned in the writ petition, then, clearly the Court possibly would not have interfered on the petition at all. 5. From the record it is clear that the petitioners have made misstatement of facts and have concealed essential facts which are germane to the controversies at issue. 5. From the record it is clear that the petitioners have made misstatement of facts and have concealed essential facts which are germane to the controversies at issue. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that they have given false evidence which is an offence against public justice under Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . Consequently, the petitioners are liable to face proceedings under Sec. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as their actions affect the administration of justice. 6. Let notice be served upon the petitioners through their counsel so that they may receive an opportunity to explain their conduct before the Court. 7. For this, the date will be 4/03/2000. Copies of these proceedings be delivered by Monday to counsel who appears on behalf of the four petitioners so named in the petition. A copy of these proceedings be also delivered to A.A.G. 2 who has been requested to take notice of this matter and assist the Court when the matter is taken up on the date as set. Put up on 4th March, 2002.Order accordingly.