AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.K. Mishra, J.—The Petitioner in this writ application assails the selection of Opp. Party No. 4 as a retail dealer for Petrol/Diesel of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. at Saatmile Chhak, Dist. Dhenkanal on the Cuttack-Sambalpur Highway. Opp. Party No. 3 advertised in daily newspaper on 23.08.2011 for award of MS/HSD Retail Outlet Dealership of BPCL at Saatmile Chhak, Dist. Dhenkanal in pursuance whereof, the Petitioner & Opp. Party No. 4 applied. After scrutiny of the applications, Opp. Party No. 3 invited applicant & Opp. Party No. 4 for interview. The Petitioner, who is an ex-Navy Officer having retired in the rank of Hon. Sub-Lieutenant claims that he has fulfilled all the requirements as per the aforesaid advertisement. He further contends that he has requisite measure of land close to the Highway bearing plot No. 90 of Hal Khata No. 252 of Mouza-Baghaharia, Tahsil-Hindol, Dist. Dhenkanal.
Opp. Party No. 4 has submitted Record of Rights of Mouza-Baghdharia of Hal Plot No. 447 of Hal Khata No. 260 having an area of Ac. 1.020 decs. & Hal Plot No. 459 of Hal Khata No. 260 of an area of Ac. 1.130 decimals. Further, Opp. Party No. 4 has also shown the area under Plot No: 439 corresponding to Hal Khata No. 146 under the Kisam ''Abada Jogya Anabadi'' & Parbat Dui of an area of Ac. 26,000 decs., wherein a public road is to be constructed without changing the. Kisam of the land by due process of law. Hal Plot Nos. 447 of 459 under Hal Khata No. 260 are not connected with any public road. The public road & such other lands of Opp. Party No. 4 is intervened by the Government land under Hal Plot No. 439 corresponding to Hal Khata No. 146, wherein 33 KV/11 KV electric line runs. Besides over-Hal Plot No. 447 corresponding to Khata No. 260 of opposite, party No. 4, the said high voltage line is also running, wherein the petrol/ diesel pump cannot co-exist under the high tension electric line.
The Petitioner further pleads that the Opp. Party No. 4 has obtained an order for-construction of narrow public road deviating the norms & procedure for converting the Kissam of the Government land of Mountain-2 (Parbat-Dui) without observing the formalities of conversion or of due process of law; such as inviting objections from public, notification in the local newspapers etc. Hence, the Opp. Party No. 4 has manipulated & forged the concerned documents in connivance with the Revenue authorities.
In the rejoinder affidavit, the Petitioner further pleads that the Opp. Party No. 4 has submitted forged permission granted by the Sub-Collector vide RMC No. 1 of 2011 dated 02.07.2011, which was meant for HPCL & not for BPCL. In other words, it is pleaded by the Petitioner that the permission granted by the Revenue Authorities for use of the Government land for the purpose of connecting public road with the site, wherein Opp. Party No. 4, intends to construct his Petrol/ Diesel pump, has been granted to the Petitioner for running a petrol pump by the Hindustan Petroleum Co. Ltd. & not by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd. Hence, it is contended that Opp. Party No. 4 has obtained the dealership from the BPCL by producing forged documents.
In order to assess the factual position as to how the Opp. Party No. 4 has obtained an order of the Revenue authorities, the original records of R.M.C. No. 1 of 2011 was called for & on being produced by the Standing Counsel, the same has been perused. It is apparent from the case records that originally the order was considered on 02.07.2011 granting permission to the Opp. Party to use the land for entrance purpose of HPCL Petrol Pump. However, from the order it is clear that "HPCL" has been over-written to read "BPCL". In other words, the letter ''H'' has been over-written to read as letter ''B''. From the application filed by the Petitioner, it is also clear that there has been a correction in the application form. Originally, the application has been filed for grant of permission to use a portion of the public land as entrance to the petrol pump for the purpose of operating a HPCL petrol pump, where again the letter ''H'' has been manipulated to read as BPCL. The letter issued by the Sub-Collector, Hindol has also been manipulated to lead BPCL instead of HPCL. Thus, it is apparent from the records that there has been manipulation of the records to change the permission granted to the Petitioner to use the land for operation of a BPCL Petrol Pump instead of a retail outlet to the HPCL. Apparently, there has been a forgery of records & as a result of which a fraud has been committed & the fraud has been proved.
This shows that a false representation has been made intentionally. The question, whether the forgery is a fraud, came up for consideration in the case of Indian Bank Vs. M/s. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., . In the reported case, the Supreme Court quoted from the Webster''s Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edn. & accepted the definition of forgery as "The Act of falsely making or materially altering, with intent to defraud; any writing which, if genuine, might be of legal efficacy or the foundation of a legal liability". Thus, it has been held that fraud is an essential ingredient of forgery. In this case, it is apparent from the records that there has been a manipulation of the official records, as a result of which the permission given to the Opp. Party for use of land for the purpose of operating a retail outlet of the HPCL has been, changed to a permission granted for use of land for the purpose of a retail outlet of BPCL.
In Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and Others, , the Supreme Court has held that fraud as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud & justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words; which induce the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by word 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 representation is called deceit & consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe & act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, & injury ensues therefrom although the injury from which the representations 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 others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud & deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud. Fraud is anathema to all equitable principles & any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata.
Applying the principle in the case in hand, it is seen that the Opp. Party No. 4 has produced a document, which has been manipulated on the face of it & it has led BPCL to grant license in his favour, thereby causing injury to the Petitioner. Any forgery cannot be accepted by the Court, more so when there has been a manipulation to the official records. It is apparent in this case that official records have been tampered with. It is the settled proposition of law that when an applicant gets an order/offer by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore, the decision taken by the Opp. Party No. 3 to award the retailership to the Opp. Party No. 4 cannot be upheld in this case. It is further found that only two applicants i.e. the Petitioner & the Opp. Party No. 4 have been called for interview for the purpose of selection of granting retailership of the BPCL. Since the application of Opp. Party No. 4 is tainted with fraud, his application has to be rejected outright, that leaves the Petitioner alone as the applicant. In that view of the matter, the writ application should be allowed.
Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed. The decision of the Opp. Party No. 3 to grant permission in favour of the Opp. Party No. 4 to run a retail outlet MS/HSD is hereby quashed. Opp. Party No. 3 is directed to issue appropriate orders to grant the license in favour of the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. No cost.
V. Gopala Gowda, C.J.
I agree.