Law Book Publishers Who Print Statutes Should Be Extra Cautious, Any Mistakes May Invite Contempt Or Perjury Proceedings: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has said that those who print & publish statutes and statutory instruments should be extra cautious or else, they run the risk of being hauled up for contempt of court, perjury & the like offences in addition to being black-listed from public tenders for the supply of books of their publication.A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna...
The Karnataka High Court has said that those who print & publish statutes and statutory instruments should be extra cautious or else, they run the risk of being hauled up for contempt of court, perjury & the like offences in addition to being black-listed from public tenders for the supply of books of their publication.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit made the observation while hearing an appeal filed by Fr. Valerian Fernandes questioned the order of the single judge bench which dismissed his petition seeking a mandamus to the respondents to grant the subject land by issuing Grant Certificate/Saguvali Chit.
During the hearing, the government advocate submitted that the amount payable for the grant in question has to be in terms of the 2023 Amendment Rules since the said amendment is by way of substitution.
She relied on Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 of KLJ Publications, 2019, 5th Edition which in footnote 1 on page 48 which states: “Substituted for the words “on payment of fifty per cent of the market value” by Notification No.RD 09 LGP 2015(P), dated 19-9-2015 and shall be deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 9-6-2015”
The court upon reading the provision said that the Notification does not indicate that the said amendment is by way of 'substitution', and that without the intervention of the appellant's counsel, the Court would have been swayed away by the mistaken version of KLJ Publications, to the enormous detriment of citizens.
Then it said, “It goes without saying that if for the 'mistake of law', none should suffer, none should suffer for the 'mistake of Law Publisher' too.”
Allowing the petition the court held that there was already a grant order which was affirmed in the appellant's appeal decided by the Appellate Tribunal.
It held that when there is a statutory Tribunal's order, relegating the appellant to the Assistant Commissioner for seeking a fresh grant was not justified.
Accordingly, it concluded, “A writ of mandamus issued to the second respondent to formalise the grant in favour of the appellant in terms of extant rules, the appellant is liable to pay the charges under the pre-amendment Rules of 2023.”
Appearance: Advocate Keshava Bhat A for Appellant.
AGA Niloufer Akbar for Respondents.
Citation N0: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 158
Case Title: Fr. Valerian Fernandes AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1561 OF 2023