Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Madan B. Lokur and R.K. Agrawal

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The only question for our consideration is whether the High Court was correct in imposing costs of Rs. 10 lakhs on the Petitioner for filing a false or misleading affidavit in this Court. In our opinion, the imposition of costs, although somewhat steep, was fully justified given that the High Court also held that the contract in favour of the Petitioner was awarded improperly and was of a commercial nature, the last two findings not being under challenge.

2. A global search of cases pertaining to the filing of a false affidavit indicates that the number of such cases that are reported has shown an alarming increase in the last fifteen years as compared to the number of such cases prior to that. This is illustrative of the malaise that is slowly but surely creeping in. This 'trend' is certainly an unhealthy one that should be strongly discouraged, well before the filing of false affidavits gets to be treated as a routine and normal affair.

3. The Petitioner is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 22^nd September, 2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand in L.P.A. No. 212 of 2008 only to the extent of imposition of costs.¹ In our opinion, there is no merit in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed.

4. The Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, (for short "the RIMS") issued a notice inviting tender on 10^th February, 2007. The tender was for installation and supply of a complete system of Centralized Liquid Medical Oxygen with medical gas pipe line for Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide and compressed air, etc. The work was to be executed on a turnkey basis within 150 days in the 1000 bedded departments and wards of the RIMS.

5. Responses to the notice inviting tender were submitted by the Petitioner (Sciemed Overseas) and Respondent No. 1 (BOC India). Their tenders were processed by the RIMS and a memorandum dated 25^th June, 2007 was issued by its Director informing Sciemed and BOC regarding opening of the price bid of commercially and technically successful bidders.

6. According to BOC, the conditions of the technical bid were not fulfilled by Sciemed and, therefore, there was no reason to invite it for opening the price bid. A representation was made in this regard by BOC to the RIMS but that was not considered and, therefore, BOC filed W.P.(C) No. 4203 of 2007 in the High Court of Jharkhand in respect of its grievance against Sciemed and the RIMS.

7. The High Court considered the writ petition filed by BOC and by an order dated 31^st July, 2007 the writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to BOC to file another representation in continuation of its earlier representation to the RIMS. It was directed that both the representations should be considered by the Director of the RIMS and an appropriate reasoned order be passed thereon.

8. It is important to note that when the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 31^st July, 2007 no intimation was given to the High Court by the RIMS or by Sciemed to the effect that about a week earlier, that is, on 25^th July, 2007 a work order had already been issued to Sciemed in respect of the notice inviting tender.

9. This fact was first brought to the notice of BOC when the Director of the RIMS in his letter dated 8^th September, 2007 informed BOC, in response........