A day after questioning Punjab’s claim that defects in the SLP in the dearness allowance (DA) matter had been cured, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday prima facie found the statement made by the Chief Secretary in his affidavit “palpably false”.The Bench issued notice to him for explaining why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated for “wilfully misleading” the court. He has also been asked to remain present on Friday, the next date of hearing.“From the materials placed on record, we prima facie find that there is a deliberate misstatement of fact made by the Chief Secretary before this court. We are, therefore, issuing notice to the Chief Secretary to explain as to why proceedings of criminal contempt be not initiated against him for wilfully misleading this court by making false assertions,” the court said.The development followed a report obtained by the HC from the Supreme Court registry. The Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor recorded that the report “clearly depicts that the defects pointed out by the Supreme Court registry in the appeal filed by Punjab have not been removed”.The report also showed that the appeal filed by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) continued to lie in defect. “From the report of the registry of the Supreme Court, it is apparent that a false statement was made before the court yesterday,” the Bench observed.The court had on Monday directed its registry to immediately obtain the Supreme Court registry’s status report after the state maintained that defects in its appeal had been cured. The Chief Secretary had also appeared before the court and filed an affidavit.As the matter came up for hearing on Tuesday morning, the Bench recorded that an affidavit was not filed despite its direction in the August 3 judgment requiring the Chief Secretary to file the same by August 31. The court said the matter had, thereafter, been placed before it on applications filed by the petitioners and interveners invoking its jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution.The court was assisted in the matter on the applicants’ behalf by senior advocate Sanjay Kaushal. Another application in the same matter was filed through counsel Gagneshwar Walia and Hargun Sethi, and was argued by senior advocate Chetan Mittal.