Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivam Prathmik Upbhokta Sahkari ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2013
Author: K.K. Trivedi
Bench: K.K. Trivedi
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR.
Writ Appeal No.397/2010
Shivam Prathmik Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar.
Vs
State of M.P. and others.
PRESENT :
Hon'ble Shri Justice S.A. Bobde, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. J.
Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Vijay K. Pandey, learned Dy. Advocate General,
for respondents No. 1 to 3.
None for respondent No.4.
Per : K.K. Trivedi, J.
ORDER
(26.2.2013) This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, has been filed against the order dated 21.4.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.5036/2010, by which the writ petition filed by the appellant against the allotment of fair price shop to respondent No.4 has been dismissed. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has not looked into the claim of the appellant as in terms of the Scheme made by the State government for Food and Civil Supply, the respondent No.4 could not have been appointed as a retail dealer for distribution of food grain. In fact, the shop should have been allotted to the appellant.
2: During the course of hearing of this appeal, the appellant has moved an application for taking additional documents on record. With the said application, the 2 appellant has filed a letter/certificate of registration of respondent No.4 Society, indicating that the respondent No.4 was not registered for working in the area of Kawasji Ward where the disputed fair price shop was situated and claimed that the respondent would not be entitled to grant of fair price shop in the said ward. While reply to the said application was filed, the respondents have categorically contended that a manipulated document has been filed by the appellant before this Court and have contended that in fact the respondent No.4 was registered as a Society in Ram Niwas Singh Ward and Cawasji Ward, Katni. This being so, on 9.10.2012, this Court passed an order, seized documents filed by the appellant and directed that the said document be kept in the sealed cover. The respondent State was also directed to produce the original record for perusal of the Court in a sealed cover. The documents were produced before this Court. On 15.1.2013, this Court directed an enquiry with respect to the testing of genuineness of the documents sought to be produced by the appellant and directed the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Katni, Mudwara to hold an enquiry, record the evidence of the appellant and the official representative of the respondent-State as also the authorised representative of the respondent No.4-Society and to submit a report to this Court after recording its finding with respect to the originality of the documents.
3: The enquiry as directed has been conducted by affording full opportunity to the parties concerned and a report is sent to this Court with the original document and records as also the statements of witnesses recorded during enquiry. The learned III Addl. District and Sessions Judge has categorically held that the document Ex.P/5, photocopy of which is sought to be produced before this 3 Court by the appellant is a manipulated document and the same is not true and correct copy of the document kept in the official record of the respondents. Further, it has been categorically held by the learned III Addl. District and Sessions Judge that the document sought to be produced before this Court has been manipulated by deleting the words "Avam Cawasji Ward" and to make the copy as a true copy, some further manipulation is done by putting the dotted line in the relevant portion of that document, but the same is not tallying with the original document kept in the record of the respondent-State.
4: Obviously, the appellant herein was claiming that the respondent No.4 was not registered as a Society to function in Cawasji Ward and, therefore, the fair price shop established in the said ward could not have been allotted to the respondent No.4. It is apparently clear that the manipulation in the document was done by the appellant only to gain a benefit from this Court in this writ appeal. This being so, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution of the appellant for producing a manipulated document before this Court in evidence of claim made in the writ appeal is necessary and for that, Registrar (Judicial) is directed to make a complaint against the appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Katni, for committing offences as prescribed under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5: In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is clear that the appellant was trying to claim benefit from this Court only on the basis of manipulated document. No such claim of the appellant could be granted in such circumstances. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs Vs. 4 Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs [1994 (1) SCC 1], wherein it has been held that on suppression of material facts or on a misrepresentation if an order is obtained from the Court of law, the said order would be obtained by fraud with the Court and, therefore, would amount to a nullity. Further, the learned Single Judge has held that if the State Government has made a Scheme and in terms of the Scheme if the fair price shop is allotted to the respondent No.4 in the particular ward, no error is committed by the respondents authorities. The appellant has no enforceable right as set-forth in the writ petition.
6: We see no reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal being devoid of any substance is dismissed.
(S.A.Bobde) (K.K. Trivedi)
Chief Justice Judge
A.Praj.
5