Judgment 1. Issue notice. 2. Normally the Court would not interfere with an interim order, in this matter in C.W.J.C. No. 1257 of 2003 : Ram Dhyan Ram vs. Shri Shashi Kant Sharma & Ors. This interim order is dated 4 September, 2003. 3. An interlocutory application was filed to vacate the interim order. This was interlocutory application no. 2167 of 2003. The prayer made in the interlocutory application was, to the effect, that the interim order dated 9 April, 2003 be vacated. The learned Judge observed "I do not find sufficient reasons to vacate interim order dated 9.4.2003." Thus, interlocutory application no. 2167 of 2003 was dismissed, 4. The issue is a lis between those who may have received promotion. Obviously, it is an issue between general category candidates and reserved category candidates. The Court is mentioning nothing on the merits of the controversies as the writ petition is still pending. 5. But, one of the submission made in the Letters Patent Appeal is to the effect, that of the record which was appended along with the writ petition was not the whole of the record and there was material suppression of facts by the petitioners. 6. The appellant then demonstrated that the case apparently seems to be based on Annexure 2, a gradation list dated 7 July, 1999 at page 26 of the petition. The question posed was does this gradation list exist? 7. The answer demonstrated was, to the effect, that this gradation list had been cancelled by the State of Bihar. This was a government order no. E/ Bari-102/99 P.-Ni. 4665 (W.E.). This government order is appended as Annexure D at page 113 to the second supplementary counter affidavit filed on 9 April, 2003 by one Shashi Kant Sharma, Secretary-cum-Commis-sioner in the Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. It was then demonstrated that respondents 6, 7, 10, 11. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23 and 24 filed their counter affidavits. This counter affidavit was affirmed by one Uday Narain respondent no. 10. What has been appended as Annexure D to the second supplementary counter affidavit by the State of Bihar has been appended as Annexure R/1 by these respondents and this annexure is at page 157. This is the same document and carries the same no. E/Bari. 102 P. Ni.-4665(S). This counter affidavit was affirmed by one Uday Narain respondent no. 10. What has been appended as Annexure D to the second supplementary counter affidavit by the State of Bihar has been appended as Annexure R/1 by these respondents and this annexure is at page 157. This is the same document and carries the same no. E/Bari. 102 P. Ni.-4665(S). In both the annexures there is a recital, to the effect, "7.7.99 .... ..... Rad Karte Huye". 8. If the government order dated 7 July, 1999 which is appended as Annexure 2 to the writ petition did not exist as it had been cancelled by the State of Bihar then what came to the Court as a case in the writ petition was not the truth. Whosoever swore the affidavit supporting the writ petition, record for record, had concealed an essential document and there was a material suppression of facts and record. This record goes to the root of the matter. The Court would have judged the case as was brought to adjudge the rights of the parties on the petition as filed. It fell upon the State of Bihar or the contesting respondent to bring on record this document which according to the petitioners did not even exist. 9. This suppression of material record defiles purity of justice which shatters the prerogative writ jurisdiction and shakes the faith of the Court. If this is what affects public justice, then the Court will have to re think on the parameters of the issue of a writ of certiorari. It would be better that simply a certiorari action should bring forth the record and the Court would then not have on its hand and within its portals inequitable pleas and falsified records. 10. The prerogative writ jurisdiction came with the Constitution of India in 1950. It came upon a faith that what will be brought by a petition will be the truth and nothing but the truth and nothing material would be concealed. 11. The Court is very sad to record this order and it is no pleasure to put this order in print but if this is what has become of public justice at the High Court, here, then, the Court owes a duty to itself and the Constitution to seek on a certiorari action, the record itself. 11. The Court is very sad to record this order and it is no pleasure to put this order in print but if this is what has become of public justice at the High Court, here, then, the Court owes a duty to itself and the Constitution to seek on a certiorari action, the record itself. The indulgence of pleading on affidavits is being abused both at the High Court here, and the causes which are taken from here to the Supreme Court. 12. The Court cannot help recording that at the time when the order was being dictated, learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition desired to say something. His clients will have an opportunity to their counsel if an occasion so arises and counsel will have his opportunity when this aspect comes up for consideration on notices issued to the petitioners who brought the cause without the government order which had been cancelled. 13. Notice will be issued to the petitioner respondents. As this matter shakes the faith of the Court and the very foundation of the prerogative writ jurisdiction defiling its purity and sanctity of public justice, the Registrar General will arrange for notices to be given to the establishment of the State counsel for being served upon the petitioner respondents as they are the government servants. They may appear before the Court and offer their explanation as to why the Court ought not to take out a proceeding against them under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 14. At the request of State Counsel, put up on 19 January, 2004 in the supplementary list, after fresh cases.