JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J.
1. This is the second writ petition of M/s. Shyam Stone Co., Basically the issue is whether the State-respondents could impose royalty on the petitioner amounting to Rs. 2,36,565.36. The petitioner had applied for a lease for a period of five years in village Billimarkindi, Pargana Agori, Tahsil Robertsganj, district Sonbhadra, for excavation of stones. Whatever rights the petitioner had applied for, the application could only be made under the U. P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963. Earlier the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 31116 of , 1994. M/s Shyam Stone Co. v. District Magistrate, Sonbhadra and others.
2. Though the reliefs sought are different than the submissions, the contention of the petitioner in the petition is that the royalty which has been imposed, coupled with the demand of compound interest on it, is not in accordance with the law. The petitioner contends that in similar circumstances, in another writ petition, the High Court had ordered that the pending representation be disposed off and in the interim period the recovery proceedings be stayed. The petitioner gave the reference to the other writ petition and appended a copy of the order along with this petition. It was in these circumstances that the High Court ordered that a decision has to be given by the authority, i.e., to say the Mines Officer, district Sonbhadra, on the pending representation of the petitioner and further recovery of the impugned demand so raised in the impugned notice was to remain stayed. In effect, a writ of mandamus has been issued by the High Court. With this observation, the earlier writ petition of the petitioner had been decided.
3. Armed with the order dated 22.9.1994 of the High Court on the earlier writ petition, the petitioner expected the authority, the Mines Officer, Sonbhadra, to pass an order. The Mines Officer, apparently regard being had to the state of the record, could not pass an order as the High Court had directed.
4. As an order could not be passed, the petitioner filed a second writ petition, the present one. This is Writ Petition No. 23055 of 1995. In the first writ petition, the State of U. P. did not have an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit. In the present writ petition, as a counter-affidavit has been filed, the record now reveals that what the petitioner contended in the first writ petition was not correct. The Mines Officer has placed on the record in his order dated 29.9.1994 (Annexure-3) trial it is not possible to pass an order in terms of the directions of the High Court. The Mines Officer gave his reason why this is not possible. In his order, he has recorded that the representation, the petitioner had spoken of in the earlier petition, is not on the record. Thus, of that representation about which the petitioner had made a statement before the High Court in his first writ petition it does not exist. It was never filed. There is no representation which was or is pending. However, the Mines Officer did entertain the representation from the petitioner fully alive to the situation that the petitioner has made an incorrect statement before the High Court.
5. The Court is concerned with persons like the petitioner who utilise the prerogative writ jurisdiction of the High Court by making bold statements that some authority is in inaction and does not proceed with the matter, on a pending representation, when no such record exists.
6. Firstly, the obligation of a state authority or the statutory authority to discharge its obligations of law arise only when the Court has directed that the authority may act in a given situation in a matter left pending for long.
7. No person should be given an indulgence to make a statement before the Court and procure an order that the pending representation ought to be decided when no such representation may have been filed and is not a part of the record.
8. Today, on the petitioner's second writ petition the State has contended that the petitioner had in fact not filed any representation and the question of the authority acting on a pending representation did not arise. In fact, the Court appreciates the independence of the Mines Officer to verify the record and place on record that there was no representation upon which he could act. The circumstances of this case are that the petitioner approached the High Court on his earlier writ petition with unfairness and made an incorrect submission in the High Court's writ jurisdiction. Long ago, this Court had laid down the rule of sustaining writ petitions. The High Court decides writ petitions only on affidavits. The affidavit accompanying the writ petition or the defence in the counter-affidavit places the record of the authorities concerned whose action is challenged. The exchange of affidavits is supplementary to the physical procurement of the record by a writ of certiorari. It is expected from all that those who will submit will be submitting before the Court the truth.
10. The petitioner was not fair with the Court and had not made correct submissions neither on the record of the first writ petition nor in the present writ petition. In the circumstances, the Court cannot grant any relief and the petitioner must satisfy the demand of royalty which he has been required to pay, subject to any redress provided under the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963.
11. Dismissed by costs.