Judgment 1. In too many frequent instances the Patna High Court is facing one after another cases being filed on falsehood and chased in a letters patent appeal. But when such matters are considered and the falsehoods surface to be noticed then, conveniently, a request is made to the court that the letters patent appeal be permitted to be withdrawn. 2. Falsehood has no place in a court of law. Now does the Constitution suffer falsehood? Satya Meva Jayate is the enshrined principle in all spheres and aspects where the Constitution puts its umbrella, whether administration, legislature or judiciary. 3. The writ jurisdiction of any High Court is a discretion of a court exercised in favour of a citizen to seek constitutional remedies but the cardinal principle is that the facts which will be stated will be the truth and nothing but the truth. It is only for the convenience of the citizens that the court in writ matters permits the record to be seen through true copies of affidavits, otherwise, it would be normal that upon a writ of certiorari being issued the record would normally come to the court. The fact that a facsimile record is permitted in a writ jurisdiction also rests on the corollary that what will be presented to the court are facts and truth and not falsehoods. 4. The present is a case where the petitioner-appellant Rajendra Tanti filed a writ petition CWJC No. 4056 of 2002 : Rajendra Tanti V/s. State of Bihar & others. The issue brought was that his service had been terminated illegally by an order of 13 June 1997, Annexure-1 to the petition. The petitioner-appellant got a job on the faith of a declaration that he was the nephew of a village Chowkidar one Baldeo Tanti. When the District Magistrate, Khagaria started making inquiries it turned out that the petitioner-appellant was no where in the degree of relationship which would entitle him to be considered for a job or to permit the erstwhile Chowkidar to make a recommendation for the appointment of his ward. Even if a nephew could be considered for the job, the petitioner was not a nephew. 5. The facts which emerged were that the petitioner appellant only turned out to be a caste-man and not even a nephew of late Baldeo Tanti. The petitioner-appellant was issued a show cause notice. Even if a nephew could be considered for the job, the petitioner was not a nephew. 5. The facts which emerged were that the petitioner appellant only turned out to be a caste-man and not even a nephew of late Baldeo Tanti. The petitioner-appellant was issued a show cause notice. He evaded replying to the notice and kept away from the proceedings. The District Magistrate recorded that despite the notice the petitioner-appellant neither attended the proceedings nor replied to the show cause notice. 6. The facts which emerged now beyond reasonable doubt are that the petitioner-appellant Rajendra Tanti was not the nephew of Baldeo Tanti. Subsequently, this petitioner-appellant attempted to bring in extraneous facts and offered an explanation which is best recorded as he wrote it. In describing his relationship the expression reads "Mere Pita Sri Budhan Tanti ke Mamere Bhai the". This in itself brings out the falsehood that the job which was received by the petitioner-appellant Rajendra Tanti was given on the faith that he was the nephew of Baldeo Tanti, which he was not. 7. The learned judge has noticed in details the contradictions and the falsehood on the record. The order on the writ petition should have been enough and the matter should have been left at that. Instead the order of the learned judge is now chased in a letters patent appeal and the situation is being justified. There is no circumstance or any factor available to the court that it should interfere with the order of the learned judge on the writ petition which is based on facts, after inquiries and opportunities offered to the petitioner-appellant. 8. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner-appellant committed falsehood on record in receiving a job to which he was not entitled to. In fact, the learned judge has been kind enough to the petitioner- appellant in not taking the matter further. The petitioner-appellant has business like filed the present letters patent appeal, to yet chase a claim based on falsehood. Now, it is the business of the law, which the courts uphold, to ensure that falsehood be checked. The District Magistrate, Katihar will now ensure that a case for perjury under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 be filed before the Magistrate in jurisdiction for having presented falsehood on record to secure a job which the petitioner was not entitled to. 9. The District Magistrate, Katihar will now ensure that a case for perjury under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 be filed before the Magistrate in jurisdiction for having presented falsehood on record to secure a job which the petitioner was not entitled to. 9. Dismissed.