JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order passed by the Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining, U.P., Lucknow dated 31.3.2009 whereby the Revision filed by the present writ petitioner under Rule 78 of the U.P. Mines & Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 has been rejected after recording a finding, that the allegation of illegal mining against Ashok Kumar Singh, respondent No. 4 in respect of lease granted in his favour on various plots within the jurisdiction of District Chandauli is not established from the material on the relevant of District Chandauli. 2. The Court while hearing the writ petition found that there has been concealment of material facts, qua earlier writ petitions, filed, issuance of orders by the district authorities, and the affidavits filed before this Court by the State authorities as well as by Ashok Kumar Singh. The Court passed a detailed order on 29.5.2009 which noticed all the relevant facts on record. It is worthwhile to reproduce the order which is as below : “Facts stated in this writ petition and those which exist on records of the District-authorities qua dispute pertaining to the illegal mining by Ashok Kumar Singh, respondent No. 4 in this writ petition, in whose favour the impugned order has been passed by the Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow dated 30th March, 2009, present a very sorry State of affairs. This Court will not mince words while recording that at every stage of the proceedings culminating in the impugned order, there has been miss-statement of facts and concealment of orders, which exist on record, by all the authorities from the level of the Secretary, District Magistrates of Chandauli and Varanasi, Assistant Geophysicist/Mining Inspector, Varanasi/Chandauli as well as by private respondent No. 4, Ashok Kumar Singh, with an apparent intention to confer illegal benefits upon respondent No. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Afzal and another v. State of Haryana and others, JT 1996 (1) SC 328 and Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1995 SC 1795 , has held that concealment of material facts/filing of false affidavit amounts to criminal contempt, inasmuch as it amounts to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. Writ petitions are decided by this Court on the basis of affidavits filed by the parties, if there is apparent concealment of facts in the counter-affidavit filed by the State-authorities before this Court, which include the Secretary, District Magistrates and the Mining Inspector/Assistant Geophysicist, nothing can be worse. The purity of the river of justice has to be maintained at all cost and howsoever, high a person may be, if he pollutes the river, he has to be dealt with within the four corners of law, as situation so demands. The facts which are being recorded herein below by this Court will demonstrate that such situation has arisen in the facts of the present case and therefore, for unprecedented situations like one in hand, unprecedented solutions are required. This Court may first state the facts, in detail leading to the said situation. Respondent No. 4, Ashok Kumar Singh was granted mining lease rights in respect of plot situate in Village Badgaavan, Tehsil Sakaldiha, District Chandauli for a period of three years under lease deed dated 19th February, 2007. Complaints were received against the respondent No. 4 qua illegal mining having been effected by him. Enquiry was got conducted on complaints and reports dated 12th January, 2008, dated 21st January, 2008, dated 19th February, 2008 and dated 7th April, 2008 were submitted categorically stating that respondent has indulged in illegal mining qua a total area of 10378 cubic metres, he had used duplicate copy of MM-11 passes for illegal transportation of about 6,600 cubic metres of sand and that 3,778 cubic metres of sand was transported without MM-11 passes. On the said reports, the Director Geology and Mining U.P. Lucknow forwarded a letter dated 11th April, 2008 requiring the District Magistrate, Chandauli to take appropriate action in the matter for cancellation of the lease and for recovery of the royalty, penalty etc. The District Magistrate, Chandauli inturn vide his order dated 12 th May, 2008 required the respondent No. 4, Ashok Kumar Singh to deposit a total sum of Rs. 7,05,636/- towards penalty and royalty for the illegal mining carried out by him. He was directed to close the mining operations immediately and to deposit the money so demanded within 15 days, failing which the recovery certificate for the amount being recovered as arrears of land shall be issued and cancellation of the mining lease shall be directed. 7,05,636/- towards penalty and royalty for the illegal mining carried out by him. He was directed to close the mining operations immediately and to deposit the money so demanded within 15 days, failing which the recovery certificate for the amount being recovered as arrears of land shall be issued and cancellation of the mining lease shall be directed. Respondent No. 4 challenged the aforesaid order by means of the writ petition No. 27392 of 2008 before this Court. The writ petition was presented before the Court on 3rd June, 2008. It appears that the same was directed to be listed on 1st July, 2008 and on 1st July, 2008 nobody appeared to press the writ petition and therefore, the case was directed to be listed in ordinary course. The writ petition was filed after due service of notice upon the State-respondents bearing notice No. 23538 of 2008 issued by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Allahabad. No counter-affidavit was filed in the writ petition. Ashok Kumar Singh, therefore made a listing application on 14th August, 2008 stating that the no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents, therefore, the writ petition be listed at the earliest. Along with listing application, a supplementary affidavit was also filed wherein reference was made to the order issued by the Director, Geology and Mining appointing an Enquiry Committee vide order dated 27th June, 2008. The Enquiry Committee made spot inspection and submitted its report on 1st July, 2008. On the strength of facts stated in the supplementary affidavit, Ashok Kumar Singh was granted an interim order by the Division Bench of this Court on 12th September , 2008 whereby the recovery in terms of the order dated 12th May, 2008 was stayed. For ready reference the order is quoted below : “Although the impugned order dated 12.5.2008 is appeallable but it is based upon solitary reason that the petitioner has made excavation of sand outside his territory of lease. The petitioner has enclosed along with Supplementary Affidavit a report dated 1.7.2008 which shows that the petitioner has not made any excavation outside his areas because if the petitioner had done so he would have encroached the territory of Smt. Kusum Chandra and Smt. Kusum Chandra in such an even would have made complaint. It has been stated that no complaint has been made by Smt. Kusum Chandra. It has been stated that no complaint has been made by Smt. Kusum Chandra. Further the report also refers to certain measurements made of the admitted areas and on that basis a conclusion has been arrived at that the petitioner Ashok Kumar Singh is not guilty of excavating outside his area. In the circumstances, pending filing counter-affidavit which may be done within a month by the learned Standing Counsel operation of the impugned order dated 12.5.2008 will remain stayed.” 3. This interim order was passed in the presence of the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 4. To keep the records sraight, it may be noted that none of the State-respondents have cared to file counter-affidavit in the said writ petition till date. 5. In between it appears that the District Magistrate, Varanasi published an advertisement dated 5th July, 2007 for grant of mining rights in respect of plot situate in village Singhwar and Babhanpura, Tehsil Sadar District Varanasi. Petitioner in this writ petition, Kunti Devi, one Udai Nath and Ashok Kumar Singh along with three other persons submitted their applications . The applications of the aforesaid three, i.e. petitioner, Udai Nath and Ashok Kumar Singh alone were found to be complete in all respect. The District Magistrate, Varanasi on 11th September, 2007 determined the preference between the aforesaid three candidates with reference to Rule-9 (2) of the U.P. Mines and Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1963) and found that the petitioner, Kunti Devi was the most suitable for grant of mining lease in respect of the aforesaid area. It appears that in the meantime, Sri Kamlesh Kumar was transferred and in his place, Lalta Prasad was appointed as Mines Inspector/Geologist, District Chandauli. He also held charge of District, Varanasi. Lalta Prasad on 14th November, 2007 submitted a fresh report in favour of respondent No. 4. On the basis of the report of Lalta Prasad, the District Magistrate, Varanasi submitted a fresh proposal on 27th December, 2007 recommending the mining lease in favour of respondent No. 4. Petitioner, not being satisfied with the same, filed revision No. 2 (R) of 2008 under Rule 78 of Rules, 1963 before the State Government. Petitioner in her revision brought on record the reports which suggested illegal mining by respondent No. 4 referred to above. Petitioner, not being satisfied with the same, filed revision No. 2 (R) of 2008 under Rule 78 of Rules, 1963 before the State Government. Petitioner in her revision brought on record the reports which suggested illegal mining by respondent No. 4 referred to above. The State Government vide order dated10/24th April, 2008 allowed the revision filed by the petitioner, Kunti Devi and recorded therein that respondent No. 4 was involved in illegal mining and that fresh mining lease to such person qua a different area will not be in the interest of State. The revision filed by the petitioner was allowed and the District Magistrate was required to redetermine the preference in light of the observations made in the order itself. 6. A revision was also filed by Ashok Kumar Singh, respondent No. 4 before the State Government for appropriate direction being issued to the District Magistrate for issuing lease deed as per recommendation dated 27th December, 2007 being Revision No. 33 (R) of 2008. This revision was dismissed under the same order i.e. dated 10/24th April, 2008. Respondent No. 4 not being satisfied with the order so passed, filed a writ petition before this Court being writ petition No. 24568 of 2008. In the said writ petition a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of State-respondents by Lalta Prasad, the then Mining Inspector/Assistant Geophysicist, Chandauli, who was also holding charge of District Varanasi and in paragraph-2 of the affidavit it was stated that he has been duly authorised to file the affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 7. Writ Petition No. 24568 of 2008 was decided under judgment and order dated 17th November, 2008 and it was directed that the State may reconsider the matter along with subsequent reports qua allegations of illegal mining by Ashok Kumar Singh, as have been obtained on 1st July, 2008 and 2nd July, 2008 enclosed as Annexure-SA1 to the supplementary affidavit. 8. In order to keep the records state, it may be noted that against the enquiry reports dated 1st July, 2008 and dated 2nd July, 2008, which were said to be in favour of respondent No. 4, petitioner, Kunti Devi filed Revision No. 98 (R) of 2008 before the State Government. 8. In order to keep the records state, it may be noted that against the enquiry reports dated 1st July, 2008 and dated 2nd July, 2008, which were said to be in favour of respondent No. 4, petitioner, Kunti Devi filed Revision No. 98 (R) of 2008 before the State Government. This revision was also heard by the State Government along with the matter remanded under order of this Court qua grant of mining lease of Village Badgaavan, Tehsil Sakadiha, District Chandauli. All the revisions were heard on one and same date and decided on 30th March, 2009. In Revision No. 2 (R) of 2008 and Revision No. 33 (R) of 2008, a common order was passed by the Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and it has been recorded as follows : (a) The records of the concerned Districts (i.e. Varanasi and Chandauli) have been summoned and examined (Reference paragraph-5 of the said order), (b) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the records of the Districts. (c) The conduct of Ashok Kumar Singh in respect of his mining qua the plot in Village Badgaavan, Tehsil Sakadiha, District Chandauli was satisfactory and that respondent No. 4 was entitled to the preference under Rule 9 (2) of Rules, 1963 in respect of new lease of plot situate in Singhwar and Babhanpura, Tehsil Sadar, District Varanasi. 9. This order was subjected to challenge by means of writ petition No. 20069 of 2009 and writ petition No. 23376 of 2009 filed by Kunti Devi, and Writ Petition No. 20220 of 2009 filed by Udai Nath before this Court, which were heard after counter-affidavit was filed by Ashok Kumar Singh. The Court vide order dated 28th April, 2009, has remanded the matter for fresh decision to the State Government. 10. In the order passed in Revision No. 98 (R) of 2008 pertaining to the illegal mining conducted by Ashok Kumar Singh qua plots of Village Badgaavan, Tehsil Sakadiha, District Chandauli, the State Government in its order dated 30th March, 2009 has recorded that the submissions made by the learned counsels, as well as written submission and the records of the Districts have been considered in detail. 11. 11. He has thereafter proceeded to hold in paragraphs-8 and 9 as follows : 8- i=koyh ds vuqlkj bl ekeysa esa pkj ckj tk¡p gqbZA igyh o nwljh tk¡p ekg tuojh o Qjojh 08] esa gqbZ Fkh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd ;g tk¡p iV~Vsèkkjd dh vuqifLFkfr esa gqbZ FkhA lkFk gh lkFk ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd bu tk¡p fjiksVZ esa ;g mYys[k rd ugh fd;k x;k dh fdl vksj vkSj fdruk voS/k [kuu fd;k x;k gSA tk¡p dk rF; iV~Vsnkj ds laKku esa vkus ij mlus ÁkFkZuk i= iqu% tk¡p dk fn;k ftl ij ÁFke ckj ftykf/kdkjh Lrj ls rglhy vf/kdkfj;ksa ds }kjk tk¡p dh x;h vkSj mlesa ik;k x;k fd dksbZ voS/k [kuu ugh fd;k x;k gS rFkk iV~Vsnkj ¼foi{kh la[;k&3 Jh vkksd dqekj flag½ dk [kuu {ks= pkjksa vksj ls lkoZtfud lEifRr vFkok vU; iV~Vsnkj ds {ks= ls f?kjk gqvk gSA pkSFkh tkap fnukd 29-6-08 dks dh x;hA ;g tk¡p funskd HkwrRo ,oa [kfudeZ ds Lrj ls 03 vf/kdkfj;ksa dh desVh ds }kjk dh x;h ftlesa ;g ik;k x;k fd dksbZ voS/k [kuu ugh fd;k x;kA tgka rd ekSds ij ikuh Hkjs gksus dk Áu gS blls lacafèkr ÁLrqr vfHkys[k ns[ks x;sA lh0MCyw0lh0 dh fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj unh dk Lrj [krjs ds fukku ls Hkh uhps gSA ijUrq lkekU; Lrj ls Åij gSA unh ?kVko ij nkkZ;h x;h gSA blds vykok vU; iV~Vsnkj tksfd foi{kh la[;k&3 ds cxy ds iV~Vsnkj gS dks ,e0,e0&11 tkjh fd;k x;k gS tks fd [kuu dks nkkZrk gSA blds vykok ftykfèkdkjh pUnkSyh us Hkh {ks= dks tyeXu gksus ds fcUnq ls bUdkj fd;k gSA 9- mijksDr foospuk ls ;g Li"V gS fd fd Áfri{kh la[;k&3 ds }kjk voS/k [kuu dk fcUnq Áek.khr ugha gksrk gS vkSj u gh ;g Áekf.kr gksrk gS fd fnukad 29-6-08 dks fujh{k.k ds le; ÁLrkfor Hkw[k.M tyeXu gS ftlls tk¡p ugha gks ldrh FkhA vr% iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk cyghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr dh tkrh gSA i{kdkjksa dks lwfpr fd;k tk, rFkk tuin pUnkSyh dh i=koyh ftykf/kdkjh] pUnkSyh dks okil Hksth tk,A This order of the State Government has been subjected to challenge by Kunti Devi, petitioner by means of this writ petition. While considering the writ petition on 30th April, 2009, this Court passed an order directing that the records of writ petition No. 27392 of 2008 filed by Ashok Kumar Singh be produced. While considering the writ petition on 30th April, 2009, this Court passed an order directing that the records of writ petition No. 27392 of 2008 filed by Ashok Kumar Singh be produced. On 5th May, 2009, information was given to the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that infact the lease granted in favour of Ashok Kumar Singh qua village Badgaavan, Tehsil Sakaldiha, District Chandauli was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Chandauli on 23rd June, 2008 on the charge of illegal mining, the order exists on record and has become final. The aforesaid fact is being deliberately concealed by Ashok Kumar Singh, State Government and the District Authorities of District Chandauli and Varanasi. This Court, therefore, on 5th May, 2009 required the learned Standing Counsel to produce the original records of District Chandauli pertaining to the mining lease granted in favour of Ashok Kumar Singh for perusal of the Court. 12. The records were produced before this Court on 13th May, 2009 and at the very outset this Court found that an order of cancellation of lease granted in favour of Ashok Kumar Singh qua village Badgaavan, Tehsil Sakaldiha, District Chandauli on the charge of illegal mining dated 23rd June, 2008 was very much on record. The Court therefore, directed the District Magistrate, Chandauli, District Magistrate, Varanasi and Sri Lalta Prasad, Mining Inspector/Assistant Geophysicist, Chandauli, who is holding charge of Varanasi in the same capacity, to explain as to why, while recommending grant of lease in favour of Ashok Kumar Singh in respect of plots of District Varanasi, the order of the District Magistrate, Chandauli dated 23rd June, 2008, was not referred to. This Court recorded prima facie satisfaction that there was a deliberate concealment of the said order. 13. The District Magistrate, Varanasi in the affidavit filed in reply took a stand before this Court that subsequent to the submission of the report dated 14th November, 2007 qua grant of mining rights in respect of plots situate in District Varanasi, no other report was asked for by the State Government. 14. On 19th May, 2009, this Court after examining the affidavit of Lalta Prasad, District Magistrate, Chandauli and District Magistrate, Varanasi found that concealment of statutory orders was no more in dispute. This concealment resulted in the order dated 30th March, 2009 impugned in the present writ petition. 14. On 19th May, 2009, this Court after examining the affidavit of Lalta Prasad, District Magistrate, Chandauli and District Magistrate, Varanasi found that concealment of statutory orders was no more in dispute. This concealment resulted in the order dated 30th March, 2009 impugned in the present writ petition. This Court therefore after recording its reasons on 19th May, 2009 required the Secretary, Ranjeet Singh Pankaj to file his personal affidavit stating as follows : “(a) Whether in the original records produced before him at the time of hearing of the Revision resulting in the order dated 30th March, 2009, contained the order of the District Magistrate, Chandauli dated 23rd June, 2008 or not. (b) In case the order was available on record, on what basis the State Government has ignored the same and has recorded that there is no material on record which can establish the charge of illegal mining by Ashok Kumar Singh, inasmuch as the order of cancellation of lease dated 23rd June, 2008 on the charge of illegal excavation is a statutory order which is a conclusive proof of the facts recorded therein unless set aside by the competent Court of law or the higher authority. (c) As to why the factum of the order dated 23rd June, 2008 was not disclosed in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents through Lalta Prasad in Civil Misc. (c) As to why the factum of the order dated 23rd June, 2008 was not disclosed in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents through Lalta Prasad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24568 of 2008 and as to why appropriate action be not recommended for such concealment of fact by this Court against all the respondents in the said writ petition.” Affidavit has been filed by Sri Ranjeet Singh Pankaj, Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, duly sworn on 23rd May, 2009 Before this Court there are five affidavits i.e. of (a) Sri Ranjeet Singh Pankaj, Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, (b) Sri Ajay Kumar Upadhaya, District Magistrate, Varanasi, (c) Radhey Shyam Gupta, Chief Development Officer/In-charge District Magistrate, Chandauli, (d) Sri Lalta Prasad, Assistant Geophysicist, Geology and Mining, Chandauli/Varanasi, and (e) Ashok Kumar Singh, respondent No. 4 In the personal affidavit filed by the Secretary specifically in paragraph-8 it has been stated that a counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri Lalta Prasad in writ petition No. 24568 of 2008 under the instruction of the District Authorities, Varanasi (District Magistrate) and he did not disclose the order dated 23rd June, 2008 cancelling the lease granted in favour of Ashok Kumar Singh on the charge of illegal mining in the counter-affidavit. Ashok Kumar Singh had also concealed the order dated 23rd June, 2008 in his reply filed to the Revision No. 98 (R) of 2008. In paragraph-15, it has been stated that if the order dated 23rd June, 2008 had been brought to the knowledge of the Secretary, he would have dismissed the revision No. 98 (R) of 2008 as infructuous at that stage. In paragraph-16, it has been stated that Revision No. 2 (R) of 2008, Revision No. 33 (R) of 2008, Revision No. 94 (R) of 2008 and Revision No. 98 (R) of 2008 were clubbed together. In paragraph-21 it has been stated that Sri Lalta Prasad, who was present along with records at the time arguments, did not draw the attention of the Secretary to the order dated 23 rd June, 2008 and it is difficult for the Secretary to now state as to whether the order dated 23 rd June, 2008 was available in the records produced before him at the time of hearing or not. In paragraph-22 it has been stated that deponent came to know of the order dated 23rd June, 2008 only when he was served with the order of this Court asking him to file his reply (Reference order of this Court dated 19th May, 2009). In paragraph-23, it has been again stated that Sri Lalta Prasad was authorised by the District Authorities, Varanasi on 5th August, 2008 to file an affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in writ petition No. 24568 of 2008, wherein for the reasons best know to the authorities the order dated 23rd June, 2008 had not been disclosed. In personally affidavit filed by Sri Ajay Kumar Upadhaya, District Magistrate, Varanasi, in paragraph-5 it has been stated that he had no knowledge of the order dated 23rd June, 2008, inasmuch as it pertains to the District Chandauli and that subsequent to the order dated 17th December, 2007, no report from the District Magistrate, Varanasi was asked for by the State Government and therefore, there was no occasion for the District Magistrate, Varanasi to forward any other report to the State Government. The stand taken by Sri Radhey Shyam Gupta, the In-charge District Magistrate, Chandauli/Chief Development Officer before this Court in the affidavit filed by him, in paragraph-12 is that all the revisions were heard together by the State Government and decided under order dated 30th March, 2009. In paragraph-15 (a) it has been stated that the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to seek reports with regard to the villages within the jurisdiction of District Varanasi. In paragraph 15 (b), it has been stated that the order dated 23rd June, 2008 whereby the lease granted in favour of respondent No. 4 was cancelled on the charge of illegal mining, still holds goods and recovery certificate has been issued for recovering the amount of royalty and penalty for illegal mining under notice dated 12th May, 2008.. In paragraph 15 (c), it has been stated that entire records were sent to the State Government and the State Government has passed the order after perusing the entire records in which the order of cancellation of lease as well as recovery certificate did exist. In paragraph 15 (c), it has been stated that entire records were sent to the State Government and the State Government has passed the order after perusing the entire records in which the order of cancellation of lease as well as recovery certificate did exist. In the affidavit filed by Sri Lalta Prasad, Assistant Geophysicist, Geology and Mining, Chandauli/Varanasi, it is admitted that he has holding charge of Assistant Physicist both in respect of District Chandauli and Varanasi, referred to Mining Inspector also. In paragraph-5, it has been stated that notice dated 12th May, 2008 was issued by the then District Magistrate, Chandauli requiring Ashok Kumar Singh to pay the amount of royalty and penalty to the tune of Rs. 7,05,636/- for illegal mining. In paragraph-6 it has been stated that respondent No. 4 did not respond to the notice dated 12th May, 2008 and therefore, after lapse of a considerable time the District Magistrate vide order dated 23rd June, 2008 cancelled the lease of respondent No. 4 and simultaneously issued a recovery certificate dated 2 nd July, 2008 . In paragraph-11 it has been stated that in writ petition 24568 of 2008, counter-affidavit was filed and details of illegal mining committed by respondent No. 4 were given, but because of mistake, reference to the order dated 23 rd June, 2008 could not be incorporated, which according to him is an inadvertent error. In paragraph-12 it has been stated that the State Government had perused the entire records and the revisions were heard together. In paragraph15 (a), it has been stated that the order dated 23 rd June, 2008 exists on record and still holds good. Reference has also been made to the recovery certificate dated 2 nd July, 2008 being issued subsequent to the notice dated 12 th May, 2008. In paragraph 15 (b) it has been stated that entire records of the District Chandauli were before the State Government and it has passed the order on revisions after perusing the entire records, which contained the order of cancellation and recovery certificate. In paragraph-17 it has been stated that order passed by the State Government does not contain any reference to the order of cancellation dated 23rd June, 2008 and the recovery certificate qua illegal mining committed by Ashok Kumar Singh nor these facts were mentioned in narrative but the entire records were there. In paragraph-17 it has been stated that order passed by the State Government does not contain any reference to the order of cancellation dated 23rd June, 2008 and the recovery certificate qua illegal mining committed by Ashok Kumar Singh nor these facts were mentioned in narrative but the entire records were there. Respondent No. 4 has also filed a counter-affidavit and in counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 4 there is absolutely no mention of the (a) order dated 23rd June, 2008, (b) notice dated 12th May, 2008 and (c) recovery certificate dated 2nd July, 2008 (d) nor there is mention of writ petition No. 27392 of 2008 filed by respondent No. 4, wherein an interim order has been granted in his favour dated 12th September, 2008, whereby the operation of the order/notice dated 12th May, 2008 directing recovery of amount of royalty and penalty for illegal mining committed by respondent No. 1 has been stayed by this Court. It was only on 28th May, 2009 when the Court examined the records of writ petition No. 27392 of 2008 filed by Ashok Kumar Singh (the records whereof were called for under the order of this Court dated 30th April, 2009, that it was deciphered that the order dated 12th May, 2008 was duly served upon Ashok Kumar Singh demanding Rs. 7,05,636/- of royalty and penalty and against the said notice, Ashok Kumar Singh had filed writ petition No. 27392 of 2008, wherein an interim order was granted, which is in operation even today. This Court on 28th May, 2009 recorded that notice of writ petition No. 27392 of 2008 was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Chandauli on 21st July, 2008 by the office of Chief Standing Counsel of the High Court, Allahabad. The authority has not chosen to file counter-affidavit despite sufficient information till that date. The Court also noticed that subsequently a writ petition No. 4312 of 2009 was filed by Ashok Kumar Singh seeking consideration of his representation qua he being permitted to operate the mining lease of village Badgaavan, Tehsil Sakaldiha, District Chandauli, in view of the subsequent reports dated 1st July, 2008 and dated 2nd July, 2008. The Court also noticed that subsequently a writ petition No. 4312 of 2009 was filed by Ashok Kumar Singh seeking consideration of his representation qua he being permitted to operate the mining lease of village Badgaavan, Tehsil Sakaldiha, District Chandauli, in view of the subsequent reports dated 1st July, 2008 and dated 2nd July, 2008. In the said writ petition also Ashok Kumar Singh did not disclose the pendency of writ petition No. 27392 of 2008 and the interim order granted therein qua demand of amount of royalty and penalty for illegal mining under the order dated 12th May, 2008. The writ petition was decided on 28th January, 2009 requiring the District Magistrate, Chandauli to decide the representation of Ashok Kumar Singh. On record there is no order of the District Magistrate, Chandauli deciding the representation in pursuance to the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 28th January, 2009 passed in writ petition No. 4312 of 2009 filed by respondent No. 4. 15. From what has been recorded above by this Court following facts now stand admitted on record : (i) On 12th May, 2008 an order was issued by the District Magistrate, Chandauli requiring respondent No. 4 to pay sum of Rs. 7,05, 636/- towards royalty and penalty for illegal mining qua lease granted in respect of village Badgaavan, Tehsil Sakaldiha, District Chandauli. (ii) The order was challenged by respondent No. 4 by means of writ petition No. 27392 of 2008, wherein a stay order was granted by this Court on 12th September, 2008, which continues to be operated even today. (iii) Lease granted in favour of respondent No. 4 in respect of village Badgaavan, District Chandauli was cancelled under order of the District Magistrate, Chandauli dated 23rd June, 2008, on the charge of illegal mining. (iv) A recovery certificate dated 2nd July, 2008 was forwarded to the Tehsil authorities for recovery of the outstanding amount of royalty and penalty for illegal mining done by Ashok Kumar Singh as per notice dated 12th May, 2008. (v) The Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining, Civil Secretariat, U.P. Lucknow while passing the two orders dated 30th March, 2009 has recorded that there is nothing on record, which could establish that Ashok Kumar Singh, respondent No. 4 was involved in illegal mining. He has, therefore, held that respondent No. 4 was not rendered ineligible for grant of mining lease. He has, therefore, held that respondent No. 4 was not rendered ineligible for grant of mining lease. The charge of illegal mining was not established against him. Similarly he has allowed the revision filed by respondent No. 4 being Revision No. 33 (R) of 2008 on the same date and has held that from the records it was established that respondent No. 4 was not involved in illegal mining. (vi) All the revisions were heard and decided by the Secretary, Sri Ranjit Singh Pankaj on the same date. Orders dated 30th March, 2009 record that the Secretary has examined the records produced by the District Authorities before him, in detail. In his personal affidavit he has stated that order dated 23rd June, 2008 was not brought to his knowledge. Even in the affidavit filed before me, he has not cared to refer to (i) the notice dated 12 th May, 2008 , (ii) pendency of writ petition No. 27392 of 2008 and the interim order granted therein, (iii) as well as recovery certificate dated 2nd July, 2008, which established beyond doubt that Ashok Kumar Singh was charged for illegal mining. There were statutory orders on record which establish that Ashok Kumar Singh was involved in illegal mining. All these documents have deliberately been suppressed by the Sri Ranjit Singh Pankaj, Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow while passing the impugned order dated 30th March, 2009. Although he has stated that he has examined the records in detail. Either the statement made by the Secretary in the impugned order qua examination of the records in detail, is false or else the affidavit, which has been filed before this Court, is false. (vii) The District Magistrate, Chandauli has admitted existence of the order dated 23rd June, 2008, notice dated 12th May, 2008 and the recovery certificate dated 2nd July, 2008, on records. His stand is that before the State Government, entire records were produced, which contained the aforesaid orders also. Further the State Government has exercised its discretion in expressing opinion that illegal mining was not done by Ashok Kumar Singh without referring to the aforesaid orders. His stand is that before the State Government, entire records were produced, which contained the aforesaid orders also. Further the State Government has exercised its discretion in expressing opinion that illegal mining was not done by Ashok Kumar Singh without referring to the aforesaid orders. Even in the affidavit filed before this Court, the District Magistrate, Chandauli has not cared to refer to the order dated 12th May, 2008 whereby the amount of penalty and royalty was demanded nor he has disclosed the pendency of the writ petition No. 27392 of 2008 filed by respondent No. 4 wherein an interim order has been granted by this Court on 12th September, 2008, is in operation even today. Knowledge of the aforesaid proceedings to the District Magistrate, Chandauli stands admitted on record produced before this Court, from the office note dated 26th July, 2008, which mentions the pendency of the said writ petition. The endorsement made by the District Magistrate reads as ”d`i;k okrkZ djs” . Further the service of the notice of the writ petition and the interim order passed therein has also not been disputed before this Court. Knowledge of the writ proceedings and interim order passed therein with the District Magistrate has to be presumed by this Court. The District Magistrate, Chandauli is therefore, prima facie responsible for non-disclosure (a) order of cancellation dated 23rd June, 2008 of the lease granted to respondent No. 4, on the charge of illegal mining, (b) demand notice dated 12th May, 2008, (c) recovery certificate issued to respondent No. 4 dated 2nd July, 2008, (d) pendency of the writ petition No. 27392 of 2008 and the interim order dated 12th September, 2008 passed therein. (viii) So far as the District Magistrate, Varanasi is concerned, it is admitted on record that on his behalf he had instructed Sri Lalta Prasad, Assistant Geophysicist, Geology and Mining, Chandauli/Varanasi to file an affidavit in writ petition No. 24568 of 2008. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Secretary and other respondents including District Magistrate, Varanasi, the order of cancellation dated 23rd June, 2008, demand notice dated 12th May, 2008, recovery certificate dated 2nd July, 2008, pendency of writ petition No. 27392 of 2008 and interim order dated 12th September, 2008 passed therein, which establish beyond doubt illegal mining by Ashok Kumar Singh, to establish, have been suppressed. The District Magistrate, Varanasi, who has authorized Sri Lalta Prasad to file such affidavit, cannot evade the responsibility qua suppression of material facts. The District Magistrate has also not deliberately stated in his affidavit as to why after he became aware of the order of the Court dated 17th November, 2008 passed in writ petition No. 24568 of 2008 requiring the State Government to decide the Revision No. 98 (R) of 2008 afresh qua grant of mining rights in respect of plots situate in Singhwar and Babhanpura, Tehsil Sadar District Varanasi, why he did not think it proper to inform the State Government about the subsequent development and permitted a situation to be created wherein the State Government has directed grant of mining lease to Ashok Kumar Singh, respondent No. 4 in respect of plots situate in Singhwar and Babhanpura, Tehsil Sadar District Varanasi. Prima facie, the District Magistrate, Varanasi cannot be permitted to take shelter behind the fact that subsequent to the report dated 14th November, 2007, no other reports from him was asked for by the State Government. It was the duty of the District Magistrate, Varanasi to inform the subsequent developments to the State Government and at least to bring on record of this Court such subsequent developments in the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 24568 of 2008. He has also not disclosed as to what orders have been passed by him in compliance to the order of the Division Bench dated 28th January, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 4312 of 2009. (ix) Now turning to the stand taken by Sri Lalta Prasad, Assistant Geophysicist, Geology and Mining, Chandauli/Varanasi, this Court is surprised at the belligerent attitude of the officer concerned. In the counter-affidavit filed by Lalta Prasad, Assistant Geophysicist, Geology and Mining, Chandauli, who is holding charge of District Varanasi also, it has been stated that a mistake has been committed by not bringing the order of cancellation dated 23rd June, 2008, to the knowledge of the Court in writ petition No. 24568 of 2008 and in the narrative filed before the State Government. This affidavit has been filed by him in response to the notice issued by this Court on 13th May,2008 in the present writ petition calling upon him to explain as to why material facts have been concealed. This affidavit has been filed by him in response to the notice issued by this Court on 13th May,2008 in the present writ petition calling upon him to explain as to why material facts have been concealed. Even in this affidavit filed for explaining his conduct, he has deliberately suppressed the demand notice issued against Ashok Kumar Singh dated 12th May, 2008, recovery certificate dated 2nd July, 2008, and pendency of writ petition No. 27392 of 2008, wherein a stay order was granted by this Court dated 12th September, 2008. He has not disclosed as to why all the aforesaid facts were not brought to the knowledge of the State Government specifically when the matter was heard and decided on 30th March, 2008 and he admittedly produced the entire records of both Districts Chandauli and Varanasi. Knowledge of the orders, pendency of the writ petition No. 27392 of 2008 and the interim order passed therein also stand admitted from the note sheets of the original records of the District Chandauli examined by this Court which are signed by him. (x) So far as respondent No. 4 Ashok Kumar Singh is concerned, it may be noticed that in the counter-affidavit filed by him in the present petition, he has not cared to disclose order dated 12th May,2008 and the pendency of writ petition No. 27392 of 2008 and the interim order dated 12th September, 2008 granted thereto, nor he did disclose these facts before the State Government, nor these facts were disclosed in the subsequent writ petition filed by him being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4312 of 2009, wherein he obtained an order for consideration of his representation for being permitted to operate the mining lease of plots in District Chandauli. The issue qua concealment of order of cancellation dated 23rd June, 2008 and recovery certificate dated 2nd July, 2008 are left open at this stage as Sri Shashi Nandan learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manish learned counsel for Ashok Kumar Singh has stated that these orders were never served upon Ashok Kumar Singh. The aforesaid facts hardly leave any room to doubt that such concealment is deliberate. All the respondents including Ashok Kumar Singh appears to have colluded amongst themselves in creating the unprecedented situation noticed above. The aforesaid facts hardly leave any room to doubt that such concealment is deliberate. All the respondents including Ashok Kumar Singh appears to have colluded amongst themselves in creating the unprecedented situation noticed above. In any view of the matter concealment of material facts from this Court and passing of the orders ignoring the relevant facts on record, prima facie stand established against all the respondents. The benefit drawn because of such concealment of material facts and orders is also writ large on record, as Ashok Kumar Singh, respondent No. 4 has been recommended for grant of mining leave in respect of new plots situate in village Singhwar and Babhanpura, Tehsil Sadar, District Varanasi, despite there being an order of cancellation of lease, recovery certificate being issued qua illegal mining committed. If such orders had been taken note of, Ashok Kumar Singh would stand disqualified from being considered for grant of any future mining lease. Non-disclosure of these facts has resulted in an interim order dated 12th September, 2008 being passed by this Court in favour of Ashok Kumar Singh. Till date no recovery in fact has been affected against respondent No. 4, despite recovery certificate dated 2nd July, 2008 for which there is no explanation. This Court shall record its conclusion qua service of the order dated 23rd June, 2008 and recovery certificate after parties file their reply to the notice issued. This Court prima facie feels that suppression of material facts and orders is deliberate. For such suppression of material facts and also for incorrect statement of facts in the affidavit, this Court feels that proceedings for criminal contempt need to be initiated. This Court prima facie feels that suppression of material facts and orders is deliberate. For such suppression of material facts and also for incorrect statement of facts in the affidavit, this Court feels that proceedings for criminal contempt need to be initiated. However, before any such order of initiation of proceedings for criminal contempt or for action under Section 190 read with Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed, it would be appropriate to issue notice to (a) Sri Ranjeet Singh Pankaj, the then Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, (b) Sri Dilip Sahai, the then District Magistrate, Chandauli, (c) Sri V.K. Upadhaya, the then District Magistrate, Varanasi, (d) Lalta Prasad, Mining Inspector/Assistant Geophysicist, Chandauli/Varanasi and (e) Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, respondent No. 4, to show cause as to why proceedings for criminal contempt, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Afzal and another and Dhananjay Sharma (Supras)/proceedings under Section 190 read with Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure be not initiated. Reply may be submitted by the aforesaid respondents through their personal affidavits by 7th July, 2009. Put up this matter on 7th July, 2009 as unlisted matter for consideration of the reply. A certified copy of this order may be issued to the learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for Ashok Kumar Singh, respondent No. 4 by Wednesday i.e. 3rd June, 2009 on payment of usual charges for necessary communication to the persons concerned and reply being filed.” 16. From the facts noticed in the aforesaid order and the affidavits filed, the legality or otherwise of the order impugned may not detain the Court any longer inasmuch as the Secretary has candidly stated that the complete facts were not brought to his knowledge and that the order impugned is an outcome of an deliberate concealment of material facts, both by the district authorities and Ashok Kumar Singh. Order cancelling the license of Ashok Kumar Singh on the charge of illegal mining, recovery certificate having been issued against Ashok Kumar Singh and the same having been challenged by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27392 of 2008 which was pending wherein an stay order was operating in his favour had deliberately been suppressed. Order cancelling the license of Ashok Kumar Singh on the charge of illegal mining, recovery certificate having been issued against Ashok Kumar Singh and the same having been challenged by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27392 of 2008 which was pending wherein an stay order was operating in his favour had deliberately been suppressed. Such concealment of facts led to the order impugned which records that there is no material to substantiate the charge of illegal mining against Ashok Kumar Singh. The Secretary for the purposes had also noticed that the District Magistrate, Chandauli has also denied such charge of illegal mining against Ashok Kumar Singh. The Court holds that the order impugned passed by the State Government is on outcome of fraud based on concealment of material facts as detailed in the order quoted herein above it is declared null and void and inoperative in the eyes of law for any purpose whatsoever inasmuch as fraud vitiates all acts. 17. “Fraud” means an intention to deceive; The expression “fraud” involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied. (Vide Vimla (Dr.) v. Delhi Administration, 1963 Supp (2) SCR 585 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 434; and Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 550 ). 18. “Fraud” as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which includes the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury ensures there from although the motive from which the representation proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on Court is always viewed seriously. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury ensures there from although the motive from which the representation proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on Court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. (Vide Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi, (2003) 8 SCC 319 ). 19. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false.” 20. It is settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an order/office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent Authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. “Fraud avoids all judicial acts ecclesiastical or temporal.” (Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, AIR 1994 SC 853 . In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Besalay, 1956 All ER 349, the Court observed without equivocation that “no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything.” 21. In Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and another, AIR 1994 SC 2151 ; and State of Maharashtra and others v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that a writ Court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as the Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. “Equity is,also, known to prevent the law from the crafty evasions and sub-letties invented to evade law.” 22. In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Brothers, AIR 1992 SC 1555 , it has been held as under : “Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct.” 23. In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Brothers, AIR 1992 SC 1555 , it has been held as under : “Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct.” 23. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh and others, (2000) 3 SCC 581 , the Apex Court observed that “Fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. 24. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and it is the duty of the Courts to see that fraud is not perpetuated. 25. No person can claim any right arising out of his wrong doing. (Juri Ex Injuria Non Oritur). 26. This leads to the Court to the issue as to what action is to be taken against the persons responsible for the situation namely Ranjeet Singh Pankaj, Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow (at the relevant time), Ajay Kumar Upadhyaya, District Magistrate, Varanasi, Radhey Shyam Gupta, Chief Development Officer/In-charge, District Chandauli and Lalta Prasad, Assistant Geophysicist, both Chandauli & Varanasi and Ashok Kumar Singh, respondent No. 4. 27. For the purposes the Court may refer to the order passed on 10.7.2009 which is being quoted herein below : “Today a 3rd affidavit has been filed by the Secretary and it is stated that in paragraph 11 of the 2nd affidavit the word ‘not’ had been left out and, therefore, petitioner seeks introduction of word ‘not’ before the word ‘was’ in last line of para 11 of 2nd Supplementary Affidavit filed on 7.7.2009. The original records of District Chandauli pertaining to the grant of mining lease in favour of Ashok Kumar Singh have been examined by the Secretary in the Court today again and after examining the said record, he has instructed Shri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate to make the following statement : (a) that order cancelling the lease of Ashok Kumar Singh dated 23.6.2008 exists on record. (b) that the recovery order dated 12.5.2008 and the recovery certificate dated 02.07.2008 issued against Ashok Kumar Singh exist on record. (b) that the recovery order dated 12.5.2008 and the recovery certificate dated 02.07.2008 issued against Ashok Kumar Singh exist on record. (c) in the order sheet at pages 8 to 22, specific reference to order of cancellation, a proposal of restoration, issuance of recovery order and the recovery certificate has been made. (d) there is no reference to the interim order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 27392 of 2008 dated 12.9.2008. However there is on record a letter dated 26.7.2008 qua filing of the said writ petition. Copy of the Writ Petition No. 27392 of 2008 and the interim order passed therein are not available on the original record nor there is any reference of the same in the note sheet. Standing Counsel states that a counter-affidavit has now been filed by the State on 3.7.2009 in Writ Petition No. 27392 of 2008. Affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Chandauli filed today be taken on record. In the aforesaid factual background the issue which needs examination by this Court now is as to whether there has been deliberate mis-statement of fact/concealment of fact and if so by whom or by all of the respondents and further as to what procedure is to be followed after recording findings on the said issues. For the purposes put up this matter as unlisted on 23.7.2009. Presence of the Secretary is exempted unless directed otherwise. The records are being handed over to the Additional Advocate General and he is at liberty to file counter-affidavit in reply to the writ petition”. 28. The Court on 27.7.2009 heard the learned counsel for the parties and thereafter recorded the statement made on their behalf. For ready reference the order dated 27.7.2009 is quoted herein below : “Shri Ravi Kant, Senior Counsel for the Secretary stated that the document referred to in the order of the Court dated 29.5.2009 were not available on record and for the purpose he submits that such inference can be drawn from the fact that the parties were afforded opportunity to inspect the record at the time of hearing before the Secretary and none of the party pointed out the existence of the said document. He submits that the use of word ‘distinctly remembers’ in paragraph 11 of his personal affidavit dated 6th July, 2009 means that as far as he remembers. He submits that the use of word ‘distinctly remembers’ in paragraph 11 of his personal affidavit dated 6th July, 2009 means that as far as he remembers. He, therefore, submits that there is no deliberate mis-statement of fact before this Court. In the alternative he submits that in case the Court comes to a conclusion that relevant facts have been concealed or misstated, the procedure to be followed in such cases would be regulated as per judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1996 (6) SCC 14 (para 12 & 14), 1996 (7) SCC 397 (para 15 & 30) and 1998 (7) SCC 379 (para 4 & 8). It is explained that in view of Chapter XXXV-E Rule 4 (b) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, criminal contempts matter are to be heard by a Division Bench of this Court. However on being confronted that Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules does not contemplate a situation where criminal contempt is alleged on the basis of the affidavit filed before the writ Court, and the Court after examining the affidavit comes to a conclusion that there has been deliberate misstatement of fact, such matters are to be tried by the same Judge who comes to the aforesaid prima facie conclusion, counsel for the Secretary submitted that the procedure to be followed be decided by the Court. At this stage the Court asked the counsel for the respondent No. 1 to make a statement as to whether he is willing to be tried by this Court or will ask for trial before some other Court. To the aforesaid query Shri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate submits that the Court may proceed as per the law. Lastly it was contended that the Secretary has tendered an unconditional apology for the mistake committed and an affidavit to that effect has also been filed. Shri S.G. Hasnain, Additional Advocate General has appeared for the District Magistrate, Varanasi and District Magistate, Chandauli. He submitted that his client i.e. District Magistrate, Chandauli has submitted an unconditional apology for the mistake which has been committed in filing of the affidavit and the correct information being not supplied to the Court. Shri S.G. Hasnain, Additional Advocate General has appeared for the District Magistrate, Varanasi and District Magistate, Chandauli. He submitted that his client i.e. District Magistrate, Chandauli has submitted an unconditional apology for the mistake which has been committed in filing of the affidavit and the correct information being not supplied to the Court. On a specific query being made as to whether two District Magistrates would like to be tried by this Court for criminal contempt or would opt for the matter being referred to another Judge, the counsel for the District Magistrate states that the Court may decide the procedure in accordance with law. On behalf of the District Magistrate, Varanasi it is stated that there is no deliberate concealment of fact by the officer concerned either in the affidavit filed on his behalf by Lalta Prasad or otherwise. He is not required to deal with the file of district Chandauli and in case there is some lapse on his part, the same is only due to a bona fide mistake. He submits that because of said mistakes no loss has been caused to the State Government and no undue benefit has been conferred upon Ashok Kumar Singh. He submitted that all matters pertaining to criminal contempt under the Rules are to be heard by a Division Bench and, therefore, this Court may follow the said procedure in case it comes to a conclusion after considering the explanation that the matter is to be proceeded with further. The stand taken is that complete records pertaining to the allegations of illegal mining against Ashok Kumar Singh were transmitted to the State Government, which contained the document referred to in the order of the Court dated 29.5.2009. Lastly it is stated that no act or omission on the part of the District Magistrate, Varanasi was intended to interfere with the administration of justice. He also tenders unconditional apology for the mistake committed. Standing Counsel on behalf of Lalta Prasad states that he committed mistake but the same is not intentional and that the entire material was transmitted to the State Government, which has examined the same and thereafter passed the orders. Lastly it is submitted that he surrenders and tenders unconditional apology, for the mistake committed, before the Court and the Court may take lenient view in the matter. Lastly it is submitted that he surrenders and tenders unconditional apology, for the mistake committed, before the Court and the Court may take lenient view in the matter. On being asked as to whether he will ask for being tried by some other Court, he submitted that Court may decide the procedure to be followed. Shri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate for Ashok Kumar Singh states that the order of cancellation as well as the recovery certificate were never served upon him and therefore, there was no occasion to bring the order of cancellation or the recovery certificate to the knowledge of this Court in any of the proceedings. Therefore, he submits that the aforesaid two document cannot be relied upon against Ashok Kumar Singh. He clarifies that unless the order is communicated, it is no order in the eyes of law. On being asked whether he would like to be tried by some other Court, he also submitted that the Court may follow the procedure as per the law. The Court feels that for considering the matter completely, it is necessary that an affidavit along with necessary documents be directed to be filed on behalf of the State respondents indicating as to how the order of cancellation dated 23.06.2008 and the recovery certificate dated 1.7.2008 was served upon Ashok Kumar Singh. This may be done within three days. Shri Ashok Kumar Singh will have three days’ time to file reply thereto. List on 6th August, 2009.” 29. From the aforesaid orders the fact situation which emerge is as follows : 30. That the order dated 23.6.2008 after issuance of notice dated 12.5.2006 cancelling the lease granted in favour of Ashok Kumar Singh on the charge of illegal mining, the issuance of recovery certificate dated 2.7.2008 against Ashok Kumar Singh, filing of Writ Petition No. 27392 of 2008 by Ashok Kumar Singh before this Court to which State authorities were respondents and the interim order passed therein exist on record are also on the relevant files of district Chandauli and Varanasi. The said records were admittedly produced before the Secretary, however in para wise reply before the State Government as well as before this Court the District Magistrate did not disclose the aforesaid facts nor Lalta Prasad who was holding dual charge, brought the facts to the knowledge of the Secretary or to the knowledge of the High Court. The said records were admittedly produced before the Secretary, however in para wise reply before the State Government as well as before this Court the District Magistrate did not disclose the aforesaid facts nor Lalta Prasad who was holding dual charge, brought the facts to the knowledge of the Secretary or to the knowledge of the High Court. Even in Writ Petition No. 24568 of 2008 filed by Ashok Kumar Singh which was decided by the Court on 17.11.2008, the relevant facts noticed above were not disclosed either in writ petition nor in the counter-affidavit filed by the State respondents nor these facts were brought to the knowledge of the Court. Similarly in writ petitions No. 20069 of 2009, 23376 of 2009 and writ petition No. 20220 of 2009 to which State authorities and Ashok Kumar Singh were respondents, these facts have been suppressed resulting in an order dated 28.4.2009. The affidavits filed and the order of the State Government impugned in the writ petition are completely silent on the aforesaid facts. The order of the Secretary impugned, record that he has examined the records in detail, yet he has not taken note of the aforesaid established facts and the documents on record. 31. From the facts stated in detail in the earlier orders of this Court quoted above, a repetition whereof will only add to the bulk of this judgment, this Court records that the Secretary, the District Magistrate Chandauli and Varanasi, Lalta Prasad and Ashok Kumar Singh have deliberately concealed material evidence from this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that concealment of material facts amounts to criminal contempt, inasmuch as it amounts to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. (Ref. Afzal and another v. State of Haryana and others (supra) and Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and others (supra). 32. Having come to the said conclusion that the conduct of the respondents qua incorrect statement of fact/concealment of material fact amounts to criminal contempt, the Court has now to examine as to what further action should be taken in the matter. Normally this Court in such circumstances should initiate the criminal contempt proceedings which may ultimately lead to an order of punishment including imprisonment. The Court would have adopted the procedure for the purposes as may be warranted under law. Normally this Court in such circumstances should initiate the criminal contempt proceedings which may ultimately lead to an order of punishment including imprisonment. The Court would have adopted the procedure for the purposes as may be warranted under law. The Counsels appearing on behalf of all the respondents including Shri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate and Shri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General have tendered unconditional apology for the conduct as noticed and have stated that they leave the matter at the hands of the Court which may pass such suitable orders in the interest of justice as may be necessary. The Court finds it difficult to accept the apology so tendered and to close the proceedings. The authority and the proceedings of the High Court cannot be permitted to undermine as has been done in the facts of the case. The Court feels that because of unconditional apology tendered, the principle of justice by rule of mercy be applied (Ref. State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin, AIR 1988 SC 162 ; and Miss Shainda Hasan v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1990 SC, 1381). The acts of respondents cannot be permitted to go unnoticed and without any consequences. The respondents must bear exceptional cost for the mis-endeavour on their part to interfere with the administration of justice. The Court therefore directs as follows : (a). Ranjeet Singh Pankaj, Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow (at the relevant time), Ajay Kumar Upadhyaya, District Magistrate, Varanasi, Radhey Shyam Gupta, Chief Development Officer/In-charge, District Chandauli shall pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- each by way of Bank Draft drawn from their salary account in favour of the Registrar General of this Court, with four weeks from the date of this order. (b) Lalta Prasad shall pay the cost of Rs.1 Lakh in similar manner. (c) Ashok kumar Singh shall pay the cost of Rs.1 Lakh to the petitioner by way of Bank Draft, within two months from the date of this order. 33. The cost deposited by the officers shall be transferred to the Registrar General of this Court to the Legal Services Committee, High Court, Allahabad. A warning be issued to all the aforesaid persons to not to repeat the misendeavour in future. 34. The State Government must also consider immediate transfer of Lalta Prasad from District Chandauli/Varanasi and for placement in some other office. 35. A warning be issued to all the aforesaid persons to not to repeat the misendeavour in future. 34. The State Government must also consider immediate transfer of Lalta Prasad from District Chandauli/Varanasi and for placement in some other office. 35. In case of default the money shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and transmitted to this Court by the authority concerned, within one month of default. 36.This order shall not prejudice the departmental enquiry initiated against Lalta Prasad which may be continued and brought to its logical end preferably within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the authority concerned. 37. Writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made herein above. 38. Copy of this order be issued to the Standing Counsel free of cost for necessary compliance within three days. ————