Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.80 seconds)Section 5 in Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Devendra Kumar vs State Of Uttaranchal & Ors on 29 July, 2013
14. The next judgment that is relied on is Devendra Kumar
v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. reported in [2013 (9) SCC
W.P.(C)Nos. 29165 &
29210 of 2020 21
363]. The said case related to a person who was found to have
furnished false information while seeking employment by
suppressing the fact that there was a criminal case against him. The
employee was discharged immediately after he completed his
training. The learned Single Judge of the High Court found on the
basis of the pleadings and evidence, that there was suppression of
material facts. The above finding was confirmed by the Division
Bench of the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that
there was no material available before the Supreme Court, other
than those which were available before the High Court, to take a
view different from that of the High Court that there was
suppression of material information. It was a case where the Court
has specifically entered a finding on the factum of suppression and
thereafter held that fraud will vitiate.
T.Easwaranunni vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2020
15. The counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in
Easwaranunni T. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. reported
in [2020 (2) KLT 362]. In the said decision, a learned Judge of
this Court considered the difference between fraud on power that
W.P.(C)Nos. 29165 &
29210 of 2020 22
vitiates an order and an order obtained by playing fraud on the
authority. It was a case in which lands belonging to the petitioners
were subject matter of proceedings under the Kerala Private Forests
(Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, which ended in favour of the
petitioners. The lands were restored to the petitioners. Thereafter
the lands were notified under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and
Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003. The petitioners
had approached the Custodian contending that the lands did not
come under the definition of "ecologically fragile land" and the
Custodian had passed orders holding that the lands cannot be
included as ecologically fragile lands. However, the orders had been
issued notifying the land under Section 5 of the Kerala Preservation
of Trees Act. The writ petition was filed challenging the notification
under the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act. Pending the writ petition,
the successor in office of the Custodian issued orders revising the
earlier order that the lands are not ecologically fragile lands. The
said order was also challenged by amending the writ petition. It was
contended on behalf of the State that the earlier order was obtained
W.P.(C)Nos. 29165 &
29210 of 2020 23
by misrepresentation and non-disclosure of relevant facts and hence
amounted to fraud and the authority was empowered to correct the
order. After noticing the law regarding fraud, this Court held that
when a quasi judicial power has been exercised, there was no power
to revise or recall the order on merits, except on the ground of
fraud. On the question of fraud, this Court held that mere non-
disclosure of relevant facts will not constitute fraud and that it
should be established that such non-disclosure was deliberate and
that there was culpable mind involved. The Court finally quashed
the order issued by the Custodian.